One either finds these ‘certainties’ appealing and relevant to one’s life or one doesn’t. And I don’t. Quite why they appeal to Sriram I really can’t imagine. Perhaps he’d like to tell us.
Hi Owlswing,
I'm rather puzzled by your response. Where did I say that Sriram needs to explain himself in any way?
I merely suggested that he might. It was an invitation, nothing more. And only because I'm curious. Are you never curious about other people? Do you think it presumptuous to ask? Personally, I'd feel rather pleased if someone took an interest in my posted views and would be only too happy to answer their questions if I could. Sometimes people ask you to explain your paganism to them and you've always seemed very willing to oblige. Is there some particular reason why you think Sriram should take exception to my invitation? If he doesn't want to respond he can just ignore me. He usually does anyway :o
Sriram did start this thread, after all. Presumably, he thought others might be interested in what he had to say. In fact, he hasn't said anything here that he hasn't already said on many previous occasions, which might suggest he feels we still haven't really got it. But to what end does he reiterate his beliefs? We've debated pretty much all of this stuff to destruction over the years and never really got anywhere beyond not agreeing with each other.
This place has become something of a battleground of opinions. I generally find that rather sterile and instead of just telling other folk why they are wrong would rather try to understand why they think differently from me. Sometimes one has to ask, but people are of course free to answer or not as they see fit. It would, however, strike me as curious if someone took exception to being asked. I'd find it hard not to wonder what they were trying to hide.
...It would help discussion if you did not go for such egregious strawmen. As I have often posted, I have more in common with some theists on this board than some atheists. Your naive and simplistic approach to this is something I suggest you need to consider and adapt to a more rounded and less generalized approach
The problem also is that there are no meeting points at all....
It would help discussion if you did not go for such egregious strawmen. As I have often posted, I have more in common with some theists on this board than some atheists. Your naive and simplistic approach to this is something I suggest you need to consider and adapt to a more rounded and less generalized approach
I see you retreated into ignoring what I wrote to just feel self satisfied with your generalisations. Engage with the individual posting and their individual posts, not with your preconceived ideas.
See what I mean....! ::)
See what I mean....! ::)
To a certain extent, I could go along with 1,2,3,4,5. From 6 onwards, I'm out of it. Too speculative, not safely grounded in observation and empiricism
What kind of empirical observation can one expect for mental states and levels of consciousness?
There is significant evidence for the soul through NDE's and for reincarnation through Jim Tucker's research. You can't expect measurable and precise evidence for these phenomena.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l7bcb3aoGc Dr.Jim Tucker's presentation..
https://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation An article about the specific case of Ryan Hammons.
All the relevant evidence points to mind and brain being aspects of the same thing; mind function correlates brain function; the development of mind mirrors the development of brain; pathology affecting the brain produces a corresponding deficit in cognitive function. All the evidence from neuroscience and cognitive science supports this understanding and there is no counter evidence, or even any supporting rationale that would substantiate a hypothesis involving a 'soul' somehow inhabiting a body and 'using' its brain. There is no evidence for such and it makes no sense. All you have is claims of exotic mental phenomena that characterise a dying brain that could be construed as consistent with traditional beliefs about souls; you would need an awful lot more than that to overturn the 'materialist' scientific understanding.
I don't know what you expect as evidence in such matters....but the type of measurable and precisely predictable evidence that you get in physics is not possible in such areas.
NDE's and data collected by people like Jim Tucker are enough to point towards the ideas of a soul and reincarnation being strong possibilities. These are not just beliefs based on some ancient teachings. They can move into the hypothesis stage IMO.
They aren't 'strong possibilities' at all, if that were the case then there would be many groups investigating these phenomena. Fact is, all you have is one or two scientists working in that field, the vast majority of scientists regard such research as fringe and maverick.
Neither are these ideas amenable to treatment by hypothesis other than testing if people claiming out of body could see hidden objects which of course has been tried and drawn a blank. The whole suggestion that people can see whilst disconnected from their optic nerves is totally insane, it makes a mockery of all we have learned about the complexity of the visual system and how it works in reality.
Why should it be detectable by instruments...and why is that even necessary? If you can internally realize that you are different from the body and brain....that is all that is necessary.
The problem is that you think of the soul as some external supernatural entity. The point is that it is YOU. Just do some introspection and self analysis and you will find that you are not the body and brain but are only interacting with them.
Something that can interact with a brain can interact with a detector.
The brain has evolved to interact with the soul and its different levels of consciousness. Which instrument can match that?!
The soul is YOU. You cannot and don't need to interact with yourself using an instrument. That is absurd.
You just need to stop looking outwards and look inwards. You will then realize that you are different from the body and brain.
Starting off from the thread on 'Is casual sex immoral'.......I thought I will (once again) explain what my idea of spirituality is. And let me add that this is not just a theoretical idea that I subscribe to. I have lived all my 67 years only working with this philosophy....and very happy thereby.
1. Spirituality is not about religion. Religions arise due to spiritual needs in people but are largely cultural and of local flavor. We can use religion to grow spiritually but it is not necessary. 2. Spirituality is relevant to everyone including atheists...because it is basically about what the human condition is and why we live and die. It is about the meaning of life and it objectives.
3. From the objectives and meaning of life should arise morality and the issue of right and wrong in an absolute sense.
Since spirituality is secular and common to all humans and life forms...absolute morality is also common and secular. It has its basis in life and its purpose.
4. Spirituality is not really about God, though it could begin with that quest. It is about what 'we' are. It is about the Self, the Subject....around whom life revolves. What are we, why are we here, what is our purpose, what happens when we die...and what are we supposed to do while we are here?
5. Based on such questions.....some secular ideas have been arrived at which I have found to be largely common to almost all spiritual philosophies around the world. These are as follows...
6. We are basically souls which are living in or connected to the body and mind. Our Personality (what we are in this life) is developed not by chance but by the influence of the soul on our body and mind. Our Personality is therefore a reflection of the soul.
7. One of the main attributes or properties of the soul is Consciousness. Through consciousness the soul uses the body and mind to function on earth.
8. It is like a person sitting inside a robot and using it to perform some function. The robot has most of the attributes of the person and in a sense represents him. It is similar with the soul and Personality.
9. The process is a form of spiritual evolution in which the soul gets born and reborn in different bodies (including animals). In the process it goes through many experiences and develops higher levels of consciousness. The essential difference between different people is in their level of spiritual development. More developed means less selfish and less intensity of needs and desires.
10. Eventually after many births and after sufficient development....the Higher Self of the individual becomes apparent. This can be seen as a spirit that is connected to the individual soul and is drawn nearer and nearer as the person develops. This is the God that we normally relate to every time we worship any deity externally.
11. In course of time the idea of an external God will become redundant and the person will start relating to this Higher Self.
12. Eventually the normal self will drop off and we will realize that we are the Higher Self and that the lower self was only a projection. This is normally seen as the objective of every individual soul on earth.
13. With this will end the need for any more rebirth. What happens beyond that is unknown.
14. All these things can be experienced and understood through spiritual practices like Yoga and other systems. If you want evidence that is the only evidence.
15. If you insist on external evidence, NDE's and reincarnation studies by Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker of Virginia university, can be referred.
Starting off from the thread on 'Is casual sex immoral'.......I thought I will (once again) explain what my idea of spirituality is. And let me add that this is not just a theoretical idea that I subscribe to. I have lived all my 67 years only working with this philosophy....and very happy thereby.
1. Spirituality is not about religion. Religions arise due to spiritual needs in people but are largely cultural and of local flavor. We can use religion to grow spiritually but it is not necessary.
2. Spirituality is relevant to everyone including atheists...because it is basically about what the human condition is and why we live and die. It is about the meaning of life and it objectives.
3. From the objectives and meaning of life should arise morality and the issue of right and wrong in an absolute sense. Since spirituality is secular and common to all humans and life forms...absolute morality is also common and secular. It has its basis in life and its purpose.
4. Spirituality is not really about God, though it could begin with that quest. It is about what 'we' are. It is about the Self, the Subject....around whom life revolves. What are we, why are we here, what is our purpose, what happens when we die...and what are we supposed to do while we are here?
5. Based on such questions.....some secular ideas have been arrived at which I have found to be largely common to almost all spiritual philosophies around the world. These are as follows...
6. We are basically souls which are living in or connected to the body and mind. Our Personality (what we are in this life) is developed not by chance but by the influence of the soul on our body and mind. Our Personality is therefore a reflection of the soul.
7. One of the main attributes or properties of the soul is Consciousness. Through consciousness the soul uses the body and mind to function on earth.
8. It is like a person sitting inside a robot and using it to perform some function. The robot has most of the attributes of the person and in a sense represents him. It is similar with the soul and Personality.
9. The process is a form of spiritual evolution in which the soul gets born and reborn in different bodies (including animals). In the process it goes through many experiences and develops higher levels of consciousness. The essential difference between different people is in their level of spiritual development. More developed means less selfish and less intensity of needs and desires.
10. Eventually after many births and after sufficient development....the Higher Self of the individual becomes apparent. This can be seen as a spirit that is connected to the individual soul and is drawn nearer and nearer as the person develops. This is the God that we normally relate to every time we worship any deity externally.
11. In course of time the idea of an external God will become redundant and the person will start relating to this Higher Self.
12. Eventually the normal self will drop off and we will realize that we are the Higher Self and that the lower self was only a projection. This is normally seen as the objective of every individual soul on earth.
13. With this will end the need for any more rebirth. What happens beyond that is unknown.
14. All these things can be experienced and understood through spiritual practices like Yoga and other systems. If you want evidence that is the only evidence.
15. If you insist on external evidence, NDE's and reincarnation studies by Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker of Virginia university, can be referred.
Hope this helps.
I don't ignore anyone. It is just that, when I think a conversation would go into a dead end....or if a person gets nasty....I don't bother to continue. What is the point in repeating the same arguments and getting the same ad hominem comments?
The problem is that, even though this is a Religion board people think that their atheist views are the default correct views... and that everyone else needs to explain and justify themselves. I don't bother to encourage such 'superior' attitudes.
The problem also is that there are no meeting points at all. I do try to identify areas where there can be some discussion in spite of differing beliefs. Areas such as Anthropic Principle, unconscious mind, influence of observation and consciousness on matter, randomness, Phenotypic plasticity, NDE's, issues regarding the Self...etc...... can be meeting points on which I do try to discuss....but with no positive response at all. It is always the same old dismissive arguments.
So, it is better to state my view and leave it at that. Let everyone make whatever they want of it. Or alternatively, I should stop posting altogether.... which I resist doing because posting here helps me think and bounce my views off some people who don't see it my way. That is helpful.
Having said that, I do however clarify and hold conversations whenever I find it conducive and healthy.
So now you’re claiming there to be objective morality? Well, as the evidence suggests that morality is no more objective.Provide the evidence.
Hillside says.Provide the evidence.
Japanese cultural mores vs Chinese cultural mores vs Russian cultural mores vs Maori cultural mores vs the various Native American cultural mores vs Aztec cultural mores vs Incan cultural mores vs Olmec cultural mores vs... and on and on and on...So if it is just a question of taste what is it to be tonight an evening with Beethoven, mugging a pensioner or what?
O.
So if it is just a question of taste…
…what is it to be tonight an evening with Beethoven, mugging a pensioner or what?
Seems that any one can replace morality with aesthetics…
…but that puts them in the same league as having someone’s Liver with Chianti and Fava beans.
Vlad,A. Ayer of instinct and reason?
Actually a matter of instinct and reason, to varying degrees.
Relevance to the claim of objective morality? If someone wants to assert objective morality then it’s their job to demonstrate such a thing – just collapsing into a sort of Poundland argumentum ad consequentiam when this is pointed out is just deflection.
No one has done that. Rather it’s just been explained to you (yet again) that morality and aesthetics are epistemological equivalents – we intuit and reason our way to positions on both, but that’s all.
It doesn’t but, even if it did, how would that help you with your a prori claim of objective morality? Not liking a (supposed) outcome of one explanations does not thereby by justify another (for which by the way there’s no evidence at all).
A. Ayer of instinct and reason?
Positive assertion......You know what you have to do.
Morality and aesthetics epistemological equivalents ..........ditto.
Aesthetics is reached by intuition and reason? ........again, a positive assertion.
Run along and do what you have to do there’s a good chap.
Vlad,At the moment I am not proposing anything You are. Do your duty ......or become a hermit and live in a shack in the woods.
Your continued dishonesty and deflection is noted. If you have anything other than a badly flawed argumentun ad consquentiam (you have a rare ability by the way not only to bet the farm on a fallacy but to fuck up even the construction of it) to justify your claim of objective morality then, finally, produce it.
At the moment I am not proposing anything You are. Do your duty ......or become a hermit and live in a shack in the woods.
Vlad,I have promoted moral realism just as there is a mathematical realism and a physical realism.
You’ve asserted objective morality many times, and the best you’ve ever managed to justify the claim is an argumentum ad consequentiam. Every time that’s been falsified you’ve lied about the falsification, then run away.
If you have something better than that to justify the claim, produce it; if not, stop wasting everyone’s time.
I have promoted moral realism just as there is a mathematical realism and a physical realism.
You have equated morality with aesthetics, said that both are a product of reason. Please demonstrate how.
When you say the parallel of morality is aesthetics in one place and and argue that something is morally wrong for everybody in another, which is the big stinking lie?
Vlad,I am at a loss to see where intuition instinct and reason come into an argument your making for them.
Another lie. You haven’t “promoted” it, you’ve asserted it to be so, but have never been able to construct an argument to justify the assertion.
Instinct and reason, to varying degrees.
Aesthetics: most (though not all) people find a sunset to be beautiful; most (though not all) people find images of death to be ugly. Many (though not all) will cohere around positions of what’s “good” art, though what was once considered good art may no longer be so and vice versa as the Zeitgeist changes. When asked why they feel that way, responses will range “from “it just feels beautiful/ugly” to “here are some reasons to justify my position that (say) Guernica is great art and the woman scratching her backside on the tennis court is not”.
Morality: most (though not all) people find charitable acts to be morally good; most (though not all) people find murder to be morally wrong. Many (though not all) will cohere around positions of what’s “good” morality, though what was once considered good may no longer be so and vice versa as the Zeitgeist changes. When asked why they feel that way, responses will range “from “it just feels good/bad” to “here are some reasons to justify my position that (say) monogamous marriage is morally good and polygamous marriage is not”.
The objects may be different, but the construction is the same and no amount of the argumenta ad consequntia you attempt changes that.
Your straw man here is the only big stinking lie. I’ve expressly said no such thing.
I am at a loss to see where intuition instinct and reason come into an argument your making for them.
So what is the reason that something is bad?
Of course you are stymied now by needing to appeal to consequences.
Check mate.
Vlad,How then do you propose to proceed with a moral position on, say, slavery since you have no means of arbitration?
As I just spelled it out for you, why?
See above. Sometimes it just feels bad. Sometimes we make an argument to justify the position that we think it is bad. Sometimes we combine the two.
No, that’s your problem every time you collapse into an argumentum ad consequentiam remember?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon%20chess
Better luck next time though.
PS Any thoughts on why you flat out lied (again) when you said I'd argued "something is morally wrong for everybody" when I've consistently said precisely the opposite of that? Gravity is the same for everyone, morality isn't. That's the point FFS.
How then do you propose to proceed with a moral position on, say, slavery since you have no means of arbitration?
Moral realism avoids the contradiction between your action ... You speak in terms of things being wrong for others and yet think it is but a question of taste.
In terms of reason why is slavery unreasonable? What answer can you give without including the consequences of moralities. Come on Hillside. You propose morality is a question of reason. Exemplify.
So if it is just a question of taste what is it to be tonight an evening with Beethoven, mugging a pensioner or what?
Seems that any one can replace morality with aesthetics but that puts them in the same league as having someone’s Liver with Chianti and Fava beans.
Also how does a cultural more count as evidence if it is not an objective thing?
Does it count in fact as morality or isn’t something a bit more amorphous than that?
How then do you propose to proceed with a moral position on, say, slavery since you have no means of arbitration?
Moral realism avoids the contradiction between your action ... You speak in terms of things being wrong for others and yet think it is but a question of taste.
In terms of reason why is slavery unreasonable? What answer can you give without including the consequences of moralities. Come on Hillside. You propose morality is a question of reason. Exemplify.
Vlad,What I want to get across to you is that every time you judge the moral performance of anyone other than yourself that is in fact contrary to your actual moral philosophy.
Oh no you don’t. Let’s deal with your last lie first. Again: why did you flat out lie when you said I'd argued "something is morally wrong for everybody" when I've consistently said precisely the opposite of that?
Deal with your lie, then I’ll deal with you latest stupidity (though frankly there’d be little point as you’d just lie about that too as you have before).
What I want to get across to you is that every time you judge the moral performance of anyone other than yourself that is in fact contrary to your actual moral philosophy.
The point about slavery is that it is a popular trope in atheist theist discussion. It is framed as a bad thing regardless of where and when it happened. That contradicts any concession to cultural mores contained in your moral philosophy.
May I ask you again do you think that slavery has always been wrong.
Finally, Are you also not of the opinion that moral behaviour can be described as enlightened self interest?
If so that is an appeal to consequences....whereas a morality based on such as “Love unconditionally” is not.
Unconditional love equals self interest.......hmm an “interesting” and highly debatable equation.
Except that the instruction to 'love unconditionally' is an interpretation of the desire of a god who will judge you - enlightened self-interest once again.
O.
Except that we aren't talking about whether it was justifiable within the context of the society it was in, we are pointing out that people who tout the Judao-Christian God as a source of absolute and perfect morality fail to acknowledge that it failed to take any sort of stance against slavery which isn't a justifiable practice in any rational morality. Either you have to espouse the idea that slavery somehow isn't immoral, or you have to accept that this represents a failure of some sort in the sequence of God-inspiration through to documentation of the Testaments.Except that your either or isn’t an either or if you view humanity as fallen and we are now in a state of lesser or greater evils.
Yes, I think slavery has always been wrong.
What I want to get across to you is that every time you judge the moral performance of anyone other than yourself that is in fact contrary to your actual moral philosophy.
The point about slavery is that it is a popular trope in atheist theist discussion. It is framed as a bad thing regardless of where and when it happened. That contradicts any concession to cultural mores contained in your moral philosophy.
Under any other circumstances IMO you would not base any judgement pertaining to other people or institutions on such a vague and debateable foundations as your moral philosophy.
May I ask you again do you think that slavery has always been wrong.
Finally, Are you also not of the opinion that moral behaviour can be described as enlightened self interest?
If so that is an appeal to consequences....whereas a morality based on such as “Love unconditionally” is not.
Unconditional love equals self interest.......hmm an “interesting” and highly debatable equation.
Though He destroy me yet shall I worship him.
and Paul’s statement that he would want people saved even if he himself had to be sent to hell.
Charles Aznavour and the lyrics of She.
https://biblehub.com/1_john/4-18.htm
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
Vlad,To equate morality with taste is the mark of the sociopath. It is no wonder that some of you guys creep me out.
And what I want to get across to you is that it’s no such thing. When you judge someone else’s opinion about what’s good art or music to be inferior to you own – the Birdie Song being less good than Beethoven’s fifth for example – are you acting contrary to your actual aesthetic philosophy? Why not? What means of “arbitration” do you use to make this judgement?
No it doesn’t. I think it is and always has been a bad thing when seen through the lens of the morality I have here and now. That doesn’t though mean I also think the slaveowners were knowingly acting morally badly with reference to the morality available to them.
Why not? I can judge anything I like, and don’t need claims of certainty or absolutes to do that. I think slavery is wrong. I cannot conceive of an argument that would make me change my mind about that. I could be wrong though about that though. QED. That’s the point FFS – my “philosophy” is precisely situated on making judgements with no appeal to certainty.
In my opinion, yes.
Pretty much, yes. Altruism (the father of morality) seems to align very well with personal advantage, tribal cohesion etc. That’s why it seems to exist in proto forms in some other species too. Try looking up Bill Hamilton to get you started:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Hamilton
Well that was stupid. The appeal to consequences concerns deciding that an explanation cannot be right when you don’t like its consequences. This is the trap you fall into on a regular basis. Reasoning that morality emerged from behaviours that are evolutionarily advantageous on the other hand is a conclusion based on careful examination of facts and evidence. See Bill Hamilton again.
And ANYWAY… none of your dull misunderstandings, arguments from incredulity and other assorted fallacies take you one step of an inch of an iota toward demonstrating that there’s such a thing as objective morality, let alone that it resides in some ancient texts you choose to find more persuasive than other ancient texts that others find more persuasive.
That’s your big problem here – not so much that you get everything wrong about the nature of morality, but that you have no cogent arguments at all to demonstrate your claim of objective moral truths. Why not finally have a go at that without collapsing immediately into the fallacious thinking you usually attempt?
So is your contention that people's motivation in behaving morally is enlightened self-interest - that the two coincide is an explanation for why particular cultures may have adopted those mores over time, but it doesn't necessarily speak to the motivation of the individual at the moment. In the same way I suspect that most people who follow the religious principle to try to live unconditionally don't actually do it BECAUSE they consciously think they will be judged... nevertheless, it's there in the background to exactly the same extent.The passage from John in context talks about love perfected in a person , a human person.
Sounds like battered person syndrome to me.
I could be cynical and say that politicians will say anything, but let's take him at face value: I don't believe in hell or salvation, but if it ends up that I'm going to hell because I don't believe I wouldn't want everyone else to come with me, that's not a viewpoint particular to religion, that's a humanitarian belief.
I'm not the most poetic of souls, by nature, but reading that comes across more as a stalker who doesn't actually know her than anything else.
I'm trying to be a little more cautious about scripture, for a number of reasons (increasing awareness of just how far from the original cultural interpretations much of even the earliest translations were, the old adage that even the Devil can quote scripture leading to it being a hiding to nothing, the range of intepretations of any given section, the ease with which elements can be interpreted in different ways when devoid of the context in which there place)... but that being said:
Within the understanding of Christianity none of us are perfect, so presumably this 'perfect' love can only be God's? For us, as humans, there will always be at least tiny frisson of fear, even if it's only the fear of rejection - if you don't fear rejection in a relationship then you have an issue, because you are in a place where you think that there is no way they could contemplate leaving, and then you stop putting in the effort.
Maybe that's why God doesn't talk to us any more, the way he allegedly used to?
That said - and, again, thinking about the context in which things are set - this is a message purporting to be about a relationship with a being that explicitly threatens with punishment for transgression, so to come with this section and ignore the fact that threat of punishment is there is disingenuous, is it not? If God's love for us is perfect love, and we need not fear punishment, then why is there the threat of punishment? If god's love is unconditional (is any other kind of love 'perfect'?) then how can we somehow fail or be fallen, how can we be discarded if we are perfectly loved?
O.
The passage from John in context talks about love perfected in a person , a human person.
Fear is a indicator of how loving a relationship is. If there is a lot of fear there is little love for God.
Entering into a relationship with God starting with metanoia or change of mind from unwillingness to willingness changes one’s attitude to God and when not estranged God changes from the mad uncle with a playroom in the attic for his favourites and a furnace in his basement to being loving parent friend or gracious entity.
To equate morality with taste…
… is the mark of the sociopath.
It is no wonder that some of you guys creep me out.
You still need to establish…
…that either or both are intuition, reason and instinct.
If that were so then the terms aesthetics, taste and morality are redundant.
And since you have made them redundant you are really in no position to judge what is right or wrong about it.
Altruism is proto morality. What is proto immorality? Start with Bill Hamilton? In terms of the gross anthropomorphism you are suggesting wouldn’t we be better off starting with Walt Disney?
Vlad,If you are not a sociopath I am relieved although I think that necessarily means you are conflicted in your understanding of morality somewhere.
Actually it’s the “mark” of a thinking being able to adjust his morality with sense and reason. By contrast the sociopathy I see is in those who comment atrocities citing “holy” texts to justifies them. How would you propose to change the mind of someone whose rationale is “but that’s my faith”?
The irony…
I don’t need to establish anything. You’re the one claiming objective morality – it’s your job to establish that, preferably without collapsing into fallacies again.
Why wouldn’t they be, given that you have no problem with other fields of human judgement (aesthetics for example) being these things?
Why?
I’ve done no such thing. Stop lying.
Why are you parading your ignorance? It’s not something you should be proud of.
Seems self-contradictory to me to suggest that humans are capable of this 'perfect' love whilst being at the same time unavoidably and inherently 'flawed'.I'm sorry but I might now end up conflicting you. You think you take away is that you are inherently unworthy but God's act in Jesus points to you to being cosmically valuable. As I keep saying the unworthiness of any person, becomes, in a relationship a measure of how involved one is in it. Because of Christ God overlooks how you are and a relationship is now open to you.
Not necessarily, fear is an indicator of how confident you are in the relationship, and how that love is manifested, and your own history with relationships - someone with a history of bad relationships is going to fear, regardless of how good a relationship is. A relationship with God has that threat of eternal punishment hanging around in the background - if you believe, then the prospect of eternal torment is going to bring an element of fear to that relationship. Coupled with a narrative that you are inherently unworthy and, depending on the sect you're part of, nothing you can do will change that and you are at the mercy of God's grace I'd suggest that fear is an intrinsic part of that dynamic. After all, isn't there a significant segment of the Christian (at least) populace who'd quite openly describe themselves as 'God-fearing'.
It doesn't remove that threat, though, does it? You might be able to ignore it, you might be able to see past it, but it's still there, and it's hardly the fault of people whose experience is to take threats seriously if they can't see past that.
O.
If you are not a sociopath I am relieved although I think that necessarily means you are conflicted in your understanding of morality somewhere.
Unless I am mistaken, You make the term morality doubly redundant since not only can it be replaced with the term aesthetics or taste…
…but even that is made redundant by it's explanation as instinct, intuition and reason.
Unless I am mistaken you haven't actually established the links between these and why we should go on to describe instinct combined with intuition combined as ''taste'' and then derive ''morality'.
In terms of Bill Hamilton, he can only get to 'morality' by leaping out of strictly empirical science into some domain which contains a bit of science and a bit of something else. Science of course doesn't observe moral behaviour rather it observes mere behaviour and that is that. And that adds triple redundancy to the term 'morality'. Also there is a conflict that if you are saying morality is not objective then it cannot be scientifically observed.
I'm sorry but I might now end up conflicting you. You think you take away is that you are inherently unworthy but God's act in Jesus points to you to being cosmically valuable.
As I keep saying the unworthiness of any person, becomes, in a relationship a measure of how involved one is in it.
Because of Christ God overlooks how you are and a relationship is now open to you.
In other words how can you benefit from a relationship you aren't willing to be in?
To be clear, that's my understanding of at least significant strand of Christian teaching, unless I'm mistaken - personally I don't think humanity is 'flawed' because I don't think humanity came about according to a particular plan or design.Personally I think we have consciously designed ourselves to fall. We design our own flaws.
And I'd absolutely disagree with that - people can be in bad relationships where they are entirely worthy and entirely invested and the relationship itself can be bad entirely because of the other person or people involved.QuoteWe are in relationship with others whether we like it or not. It’s what we make of that which will decide whether they have been loving or not. It seems therefore God is the only person we can detach links with.QuoteJesus is quoted in the Bible as saying the person who comes to him will not be turned away. What the fate is of those who turn away is them on their own.
And that permanent threat of endless torment is an example of that potentially worrisome 'other party' in a relationship - I love you unconditionally, but I won't promise that I won't torture you for eternity, there's nothing you can do about it though... That's not a good basis for a relationship, that's the start of a hostage negotiation.
Jesus suggests a death within there own sins but elsewhere there is talk of banishment separation from God, The realisation that something better could have been possible, orthodox theologians suggest that no one is separated from God and the torment for those alienated from God is to be in his presence.
The more I consider what you say and specifically your punctuating it with “I don’t believe it any way”.
the more I think what you are giving us is an analysis of why people believe namely they fear torture
If they don’t toe the line. As the passage in John says such a believer......(although I think this not uncommon caricature in atheism is you making pastiche of it......would need to be perfected in loveQuoteHow much benefit is there in a relationship which appears to be a debate about whether you're going to be tortured because you are inherently unworthly?I don’t think that is the Christians understanding of their relationship with God.
O.
If you Are not in relationship with Him your conception unavoidably is influenced by that alienation.
'Humanity is flawed'... This is because we are individually developing and growing towards perfection. It is like a school and we are like children at different stages of learning and development. We are bound to be flawed.
Ridding ourselves of our animal nature and growing beyond needs and desires is what makes us 'perfect'.
If we were to ignore our needs and desires we will be dead pretty quickly.I feel as if I have to reread Being and Nothingness
Personally I think we have consciously designed ourselves to fall. We design our own flaws.
Jesus is quoted in the Bible as saying the person who comes to him will not be turned away.
What the fate is of those who turn away is them on their own.
Jesus suggests a death within there own sins but elsewhere there is talk of banishment separation from God, The realisation that something better could have been possible, orthodox theologians suggest that no one is separated from God and the torment for those alienated from God is to be in his presence.
The more I consider what you say and specifically your punctuating it with “I don’t believe it any way”. The more I think what you are giving us is an analysis of why people believe namely they fear torture if they don’t toe the line.
As the passage in John says such a believer......(although I think this not uncommon caricature in atheism is you making pastiche of it......would need to be perfected in love I don’t think that is the Christians understanding of their relationship with God.
If you Are not in relationship with Him your conception unavoidably is influenced by that alienation.
'Humanity is flawed'... This is because we are individually developing and growing towards perfection.
It is like a school and we are like children at different stages of learning and development.
We are bound to be flawed.
Ridding ourselves of our animal nature and growing beyond needs and desires is what makes us 'perfect'.
Sriram,
Not unless you can establish first a “perfection”, the ability to know what it is and the means to get there it isn’t. Evolution is descent with adaption – it’s a common mistake to assume it’s purposely heading toward a goal.
No it isn’t. In schools there are set objectives – learning to do calculus, reciting Shakespeare etc. There are no such objectives in evolution so your analogy fails.
Depends what you mean by “flawed”.
And the baseless greetings card platitude to finish. We are animals – we can no more “rid ourselves” of that than we can rid ourselves of gravity.
We are not talking of Physics...for heavens sake!
We are talking philosophy.
Why do you keep trying to drag it down to the very precise and very predictable levels of material science?
We are the architects of our own flaws in many ways, but I don't see it as a conscious choice - no-one CHOOSES to be flawed, they either choose unwisely, or they make choices which have unintended consequences. Not forgetting, of course, one man's flaw is another man's triumph...None of what you say describes my own walk with God. I suggest what you are looking into therefore is your own caricature of what Christianity is.
Abusive partners are quite often overtly affectionate when it suits them. That doesn't take away the threat, though, does it?
Except that it's not supposed to matter whether or not we turn away, we can't earn 'redemption', we are entirely at God's mercy - if compliance doesn't guarantee acceptance, does non-compliance guarantee rejection? Or, from the Catholic (?) doctrine, can you be compliant if you don't have access to the right church?
Theologians say a lot of things - part of a relationship is good communication, so how come we're still having to have this debate? Why hasn't the 'perfect relationship' God been clear about what's involved?
I don't know enough psychology to know if that's likely to make people believe, my instinct is that it's not enough in and of itself, but once you've got them to believe when young the threat of eternal torment is a useful tool to keep people in line.
I've been guilty of this in this discussion as well, but I'm not sure there is 'AN' understanding of the Christian relationship with God - from Catholicism through Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, the prosperity Gospellers and Evangelicals to the Amish, Quakers, Protestants, and beyond there are dozens if not hundreds of orthodoxies, some of which conform to your vision, no doubt, others of which don't.
Perhaps, but I'd counter that with the fact that it's normal for the friends of someone in an abusive relationship to spot it before they do...
O
None of what you say describes my own walk with God.
I suggest what you are looking into therefore is your own caricature of what Christianity is.
I have been on both sides of the fence and found that many of my assumptions which were very similar to yours were false.
How do you know that the relationship is abusive.
Finally such an argument isn’t exactly atheist since it’s sentiments reveal only God resistance.
Vlad,This is rich from someone who presupposes empiricism scientism naturalism etc.
No, it doesn’t describe (according to you) what you believe about your supposed “walk with god”. Fallacy of reification.
Whether your suite of faith beliefs (whatever they are) are themselves “what Christianity is” is moot, but in any case the most you could say is that he misrepresented what you’ve said they are. He hasn’t done that.
What assumptions do you think he’s made, and why do you think them to be false?
He doesn’t think you have a “relationship” at all, and for good reason. What he’s saying is that, if there was a “relationship” of the type you describe then it would be an abusive one – a very different position.
You try this stupidity/dishonesty quite often: discussing the implications of your faith claim narratives IF they were true does not imply that your correspondent actually thinks that they ARE true. If I told you that I believe in all-loving leprechauns that kill babies, you'd probably suggest that the baby killing part of the story negates the all-loving part of the story. Would that mean that you would then believe in leprechauns too? Why not?
This is rich from someone who presupposes empiricism scientism naturalism etc.
I think we ought to be inspecting your vast verbage for ''Begging the question''.
Vlad,Yeah, what is it you think is being reified and in what way?
Do you have anything to say that actually relates to the rebuttals you've just been given?
Yeah, what is it you think is being reified and in what way?
What are you raving about…
…vis a vis ''Baby Killing'' and what has it got do with me rather than wealthy people............ you incredibly troubled man.
Vlad,He places himself in our conversation as one looking into a relationship and finding it abusive. My point is that what he is looking into is his own caricature of it. You are not engaging with this point, which wouldn't matter were it not for you bleating about engagement with yours.
He doesn’t think you have a “relationship” at all, and for good reason. What he’s saying is that, if there was a “relationship” of the type you describe then it would be an abusive one – a very different position.
Vlad,Saying that God is abusive is not an atheist argument. Period. You are conflating antitheism (God is abusive) with atheism(God does not exist) at this point. Something you are always complaining about. That's a big minty humbug with stripes.
You assume that he agrees with your claim of a “walk with god”, and then complain later on that he’s being non-atheistic. He does no such thing – he just points out the implication IF the claim was true.
He places himself in our conversation as one looking into a relationship and finding it abusive.
My point is that what he is looking into is his own caricature of it.
You are not engaging with this point, which wouldn't matter were it not for you bleating about engagement with yours.
What good reason does he not think I have a relationship with God other than the presupposition of cosmic Godlessness?
Saying that God is abusive is not an atheist argument. Period.
You are conflating antitheism (God is abusive) with atheism(God does not exist) at this point.
Something you are always complaining about.
That's a big minty humbug with stripes.
Vlad,Where did that happen?
Without suggesting for one moment that he thinks there’s a word of truth in it as you falsely suggested.
And it’s a false point. He’s not caricaturing anything – he’s just explaining to you what it would in imply if it was true.He IS caricaturing it. His effective contention that rejecting God should mean something other than rejecting God or having the benefits of that which has been rejected is a joke
How would I “engage” with something I’ve already rebutted?Since there is no adequate intellectual supervision here, if nobody concurs with what either of us are saying, rebuttal remains moot.
Precisely the same good reason you have for not thinking I have a relationship with leprechauns.I think a relationship with any one who challenges your presuppositions is probably an impossibility.
Where did that happen? He IS caricaturing it. His effective contention that rejecting God should mean something other than rejecting God or having the benefits of that which has been rejected is a joke Since there is no adequate intellectual supervision here, if nobody concurs with what either of us are saying, rebuttal remains moot. I think a relationship with any one who challenges your presuppositions is probably an impossibility.
Taking the responses to three different statements
It'd be good if the odd one or two of your posts made some sense rather than just being a collection of meandering words that never reach anywhere near some kind of journeys end.
ippy.
Vlad, 'taking the responses to three different statementsvis a vis "blue". I have given that man the best years of my life.
and stitching them together as you have is a bit sneaky and confusing', is a very good description of how the majority of your post go.
Check with Blue, he usually manages to sort out your confusing posts for you, you should be taking more note.
ippy.
vis a vis "blue". I have given that man the best years of my life.
Sriram,
I’ve been away for a few days and only just noticed your response (message 7) to me. I’m happy to take you at your word that you ‘don’t ignore anyone’ so let me reiterate that I have not said that you ‘need to explain’ yourself. This should have been obvious to anyone who bothered to read my post so it was disappointing to find that you chose to join Owlswing in misrepresenting me - to what end I really can’t imagine.
As I’m sure you know perfectly well I simply expressed an interest in what you considered the appeal of your beliefs to be. Judging by the tenor of your two responses it would seem you both found such curiosity a matter of impropriety. Perhaps you could get together to write a guide to poster etiquette on this forum. It would help those like me who labour under the burden of diminished intellect to avoid further lapses of judgement in this regard.
Clearly, I am still captive to the needs and desires of my animal nature and not yet perfect. If I should ever reach those dizzy heights I’ll presumably cease to take any interest in your posts and won’t trouble you with further enquiries.
None of what you say describes my own walk with God. I suggest what you are looking into therefore is your own caricature of what Christianity is.
I have been on both sides of the fence and found that many of my assumptions which were very similar to yours were false.
How do you know that the relationship is abusive.
Finally such an argument isn’t exactly atheist since it’s sentiments reveal only God resistance.
I suggest that perhaps you aren't that representative of all of Christendom...I consider myself fairly orthodox actually. You seem to be taking the new atheist dictat that you don’t actually have to know about Christianity to know what Christians believe or what their experience to be, a bit far.
If one shuns the relationship is it any wonder that the communication seems one way?
Some of the problem is that all anyone has is assumptions - if this is supposed to be a relationship, why is the communication so one-way?
where have you got this business about the threat of eternal punishment for not loving God the right way from? Also I don’ t know the actual scope of your understanding of punishment. May I ask you how you reason your way to your law abiding good guy ways? Yes that would be an interesting discussion. I fear though such a discussion isn’t possible because of the atheists around here being guilty of a ‘Ve ask ze questions here’ mentality.
You mean apart from the threat of eternal punishment for not loving the right way, the explicit admission of jealousy backed by stories of genocide and exhortations to violence and the aforementioned reticence in communication? You mean apart from that... the controlling attitude towards haircuts and food choices (whilst maintaining a somewhat laid back approach to other more profoundly problematic behaviours)...
It's an argument FOR atheism, because it demonstrates that fundamental logical flaws in the presumptions of a theistic point of view - Christians claim God is a perfectly moral, all-loving being, but at the same time it's claimed to be a jealous, vengeful, controlling, genocidal, threatening tyrant trying to paint over those cavernous cracks with 'but I do love you'.
I consider myself fairly orthodox actually. You seem to be taking the new atheist dictat that you don’t actually have to know about Christianity to know what Christians believe or what their experience to be, a bit far.
Vlad,Apparently a leprechaunist s pride themselves on their ignorance before launching into Christianity. Having introduced Leprechauns on a horses laugh argument and then ignoring it and getting onto other matters.
Just to correct you on this (yet) again: atheists (and rationalists generally) don’t correct you on the content of your beliefs. That would be akin to an a-leprechaunist correcting a leprechaunist on his claim of which colour of green leprechauns prefer. What atheists actually do is to falsify your reasons for thinking your claims to be true at all – a trivially simple thing to do.
Apparently a leprechaunist s pride themselves on their ignorance before launching into Christianity. Having introduced Leprechauns on a horses laugh argument and then ignoring it and getting onto other matters.
Example....that Dick Dawkins.
I consider myself fairly orthodox actually.
You seem to be taking the new atheist dictat that you don’t actually have to know about Christianity to know what Christians believe or what their experience to be, a bit far.
If one shuns the relationship is it any wonder that the communication seems one way?
Where have you got this business about the threat of eternal punishment for not loving God the right way from?
Also I don’ t know the actual scope of your understanding of punishment. May I ask you how you reason your way to your law abiding good guy ways?
I fear though such a discussion isn’t possible because of the atheists around here being guilty of a ‘Ve ask ze questions here’ mentality.
Your view of Christianity is stripped of well it’s Christianity by appealing to Old Testament views.
We live in a fallen world.
Genocide did not end with the Old Testament. We know that atheists lifted genocide to industrial heights in the last century.
God operates on a different basis to us.
Cosmic love is more in line with the sentiment “If you love something set it free if it returns to you then it is yours”. With God death or life is not the be all or end all.
Vlad,Hillside I think people in the past have expressed that they are tiredof certain members who mistake expressing an opinion for lying. This seems to have resulted in less members and those who once said it giving up saying it(for reasons unfavourable toward you may I add)
Ooh, I see you’ve gone for the omni lie this time – perhaps to save the time needed to write each lie separately?
1. A-leprechaunists/a-theists aren’t ignorant at all of the subject that’s actually relevant - ie the reasoning lerpechaunists/theists attempt to justify their beliefs. What those beliefs happen to be is neither here nor there for this purpose. You’ve had this explained many times, so why continue to lie about it?
2. The reductio ad absurdum isn’t a “horse laugh” argument. You’ve had this explained many times, so why continue to lie about it?
3. The person here who routinely ignores every falsification he’s given to as to move quickly to yet another diversion is you. You’re notorious for it.
4. “Dick” Dawkins is actually Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL, and he does no such thing. Perhaps you should stop lying about that too?
Don't they all?No I think for instance unitarians or arian christians, seven day adventists etc know they don't belong to mainstream churches and therefor would admit, while proclaiming they have the truth, to not being orthodox or mainstream
All I have to go on is the hundreds upon thousands of various Christian commentaries over the ages...Ok which one's are you using?
If someone isn't answering, why wouldn't you shun the relationship? How come a considerable portion (a majority?) of the people who apparently are in this relationship don't think they're getting an answer?
I'm not a big believer in punishment, it seems like it's largely ineffective - rehabilitation, yes, and a certain element of deprivation can benefit that, but punishment for its own sake just satiates a quest for vengeance.I was rather asking for your definitions and parameters of punishment
I reason my way to 'law-abiding' ways by a) attempting to be involved in the formation of the laws, b) being aware of the laws and c) making a decision on whether my own personal moral stance is sufficient incensed by poor laws so as to breach them. You?That's all a bit vague and frankly a tad handwavy. As I said, How you reason your way togood guyship probably needs it's own thread and you will note I did rather forsee the paucity of information in your response.
A virtually seamless integration of an ad hominem there, nicely done. In that inquisitorial spirit, how come if we ask all the questions, you answer so few of them?Yes there are christians who cleave to it and there are the new atheists who feed from them.
Tell that to the Christians that cleave to it; of course, it's not my view of Christianity in this that's derived from the Old Testament, it's the fact that Christians claim it's supposed to be the same God. It's my view of the character of God that's shaped, in part, by the Old Testament; it's the contrast between the claims of a 'perfectly moral being' and the jealous, judgemental, genocidal sociopath depicted in part 1 of the story.
And yet in almost every measurable way it's vastly improved on how it was when God was actually reported talking to us... The environment's taken a bit of a bashing, and we need to work on that, nothing's perfect, but it's so, so much better.The only thing that seems changed if you are prepared to ignore the state of the environment is that one can shut the door on God ......and that's it! But what if you don't want to?
You realise that you're setting 'Stalin' here as the benchmark for God, right? We do know that atheists perpetrated horrendous acts of mass slaughter - did they do it because of their atheism? Did, say, the Nazis do their's because of their anti-semitic Christian outlook? Does the depiction of God have a history of conducting and ordering genocides...?
No, with God death is supposed to be just the start of an eternity of punishment... because he loves you, but you didn't love him the right way back.Carry on up the caricature.
Hillside I think people in the past have expressed that they are tiredof certain members who mistake expressing an opinion for lying. This seems to have resulted in less members and those who once said it giving up saying it(for reasons unfavourable toward you may I add)
Secondly, has God been falsified? When and where was this? Is it even possible?
Thirdly, come on we all know the famous incident of Dawkins and his leprechaun statement. Details can be found on the web.
Fourthly we come to your continual confusion of reductio ad absurdum and Horses laugh fallacy.
The Leprechaun schtick works like this, and the handwave is exemplified on the Fantastic Beast thread where Enki states why he is aleprechaunist. His argument is based on methodological empiricism and methodological naturalism and concludes that the offered empirical and naturalistic elements have not yielded evidence. Two things here. I agree with him. That is why we are aleprechaunist and one of the pieces that fall out of that is that leprechauns seem ridiculous.
That though is your starting point.
In a classic Bluehillside ''what you really meant to say/add was'' argument'' you then move off the methodological empiricism etc into the presuppositional philosophical empiricism etc.
Therefore you commit the horses laugh fallacy.
By starting at the ridicule and moving swiftly into the philosophical.
The only starting point for equating magic and other non natural techniques/ontologies is philosophical empiricism, naturalism, scientism etc…
...and of course ridicule derived from the lack of empirical evidence by individuals like yourself but conflated with your presuppositional philosophy.
Vlad gets his kicks by winding up other posters, it has been rare for him to make any sensible comments.If there are wound up posters, they are either easily triggered or a bit insecure in their beliefs.
Vlad gets his kicks by winding up other posters, it has been rare for him to make any sensible comments.
It must wind up Vlad terribly when any atheist has a go at him and he can't find any verifiable evidence that would back up his religious claims, that is if there were any.There is no verifiable evidence for philosophical empiricism, naturalism and physicalism.
ippy.
If there are wound up posters, they are either easily triggered or a bit insecure in their beliefs.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Vlad,Your accusations of lying are tiresome. I often wonder if we would have a greater membership had you refrained from them.
Or perhaps they just don't like being lied about.
Your accusations of lying are tiresome.
I often wonder if we would have a greater membership had you refrained from them.
No I think for instance unitarians or arian christians, seven day adventists etc know they don't belong to mainstream churches and therefor would admit, while proclaiming they have the truth, to not being orthodox or mainstream.
Ok which one's are you using?
So are you speaking of professed christians? How many of those can you show have never got an answer to is God there, is Christ living?
Where are you getting these stats from?
What answers do you think Christians are after and not getting?
I was rather asking for your definitions and parameters of punishment
That's all a bit vague and frankly a tad handwavy.
As I said, How you reason your way togood guyship probably needs it's own thread and you will note I did rather forsee the paucity of information in your response.
Yes there are christians who cleave to it and there are the new atheists who feed from them.
You seem to be in a numbers game here. Namely, If we can establish that the majority of christians cleave to the old testament like we atheists think they do, then we need only deal with their arguments.
There is as you probably realise the danger of straw manning and caricature
The only thing that seems changed if you are prepared to ignore the state of the environment is that one can shut the door on God ......and that's it!
But what if you don't want to?
If God doesn't exist and there has been genocide with or without the word God then your attribution of God to genocide is not really an atheist argument.
Two things, to hold that all the wickedness of the world is down to the word God is imho bonkers and akin to believing in magic
and secondly to believe that it will all or the majority of it will disappear if we extinguish the religious impulse is something that has not been established
Carry on up the caricature.
.....
Fourthly we come to your continual confusion of reductio ad absurdum and Horses laugh fallacy.
The Leprechaun schtick works like this, and the handwave is exemplified on the Fantastic Beast thread where Enki states why he is aleprechaunist. His argument is based on methodological empiricism and methodological naturalism and concludes that the offered empirical and naturalistic elements have not yielded evidence. Two things here. I agree with him. That is why we are aleprechaunist and one of the pieces that fall out of that is that leprechauns seem ridiculous.
.....
it’s your job to suggest a different method to sift your claims from white noise or guessing, and then to investigate them.
Vlad,I do not accuse you of handwaving. That accusation is levelled at Bluehillside.
If you look back at that thread, you will find that I gave reasons why I don't believe leprechauns exist. That's what you asked for and that's what you got. That isn't 'handwaving'. I gave what I consider to be perfectly good reasons why I do not believe in leprechauns.
You didn't ask me for the reasons why I don't believe god{s} exist, but if you had I would give exactly the same type of reasons. How that helps your argument I am at a loss to explain as I agree with Blue that
Personally I find all sorts of things said about leprechauns to be fanciful and ridiculous just as I find all sorts of things said about a variety of gods, including the Christian one, to be fanciful and ridiculous.
I do not accuse you of handwaving. That accusation is levelled at Bluehillside.
You gave reasons for being an aleprechaunist which in my view were based on methodological empiricism. I have also said I agree with you.
Vlad,Nope, he outlines his grounds in reply #4. They are based in methodological empiricism. Like any sane person, He has heard the reports, determined from them that they should yield empirical evidence, none of which has presently been found. He is an aleprechaunist.
An accusation that’s easily been falsified.
No, they were based on the failure of leprechaunists to make a logically robust case to justify their beliefs.
I'm not particularly familiar with the Unitarians or the Arians, but the Seventh Day Adventists have an orthodoxy - it's sort of what makes them a distinguishable group.But as I have said even they would admit to not being mainstream.
How am I supposed to choose when there's absolutely nothing to base it upon - Christianity, surely, is the sum of the actions and beliefs of those people calling themselves Christians, so all of them.No, Christianity is faith in Jesus Christ. I'm not sure you can sum beliefs, it sounds like you are proposing an equation. I would like to see your working out here.
What's 'new' about atheism? Is it new just because we don't feel we have to be quiet about it?Wikipedia has a list of the characteristics of new atheism and there are several threads based around these on this forum. There is a bit more to it than just not feeling you have to keep quite about it. Namely a superior attitude towards those who don't think they have to be loud n' proud of their atheism(See Dawkins, the God Delusion). Turning ignorance of religion into a virtue therefore being in praise of intellectual sloppiness. Being, as the atheist evolutionary biologist D O Wilson put it, a stealth religion. New atheism certainly has it's apostles, The four horsemen. It's saints, I believe there was a recent competition for new atheists to paint a Icon sorry portrait of a new atheist saint, Christopher Hitchens, the best icon to be judged namely St Stephen Fry. We could also maybe talk about naked glorification of Horse Laugh arguments.
It's not supposed to be, of itself; it's yet another demonstration that the allegedly perfectly moral being of God has some pretty fundamental immoral .''Fundamental immorality''? what do you mean by that? How do you arrive at what is moral and what is immoral?
No-one, so far as I can see, has ever suggested that atheism is an automatic claim to moral superiority or an inoculation against immorality.Are you familiar with Laurence Krauss on religion or the Richard Dawkins Documentary slyly entitled ''The root of all evil?''
And I'm not sure that anyone said the majority of it was down to 'the religious impulse' - or even implied the 'Christian' impulse. I think if people forwent Christianity some things would improve, some things would get worse, but the things that would get worse we don't need Christianity to replace (charities, community works) whereas some of the bad things that we'd lose there's no obvious replacement for (institutional homophobia, Christian nationalism, certain strands of white supremacy, certain strands of misogyny).So christian mysogeny bad, other mysogyny ok because it isn't Christian? How would you lose institutional homophobia? Christian nationalism? Not apparently a feature in african American churches. White supremacy? Not found in the african american churches. Mysogyny? Rife in the New atheist and scientific community.
God is perfect, in morality, in knowledge, in action;
God has the capacity to forgive or condemn;
God will either welcome us into an afterlife or condemn us to some sort of punishment (for eternity? Limbo?)
The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament (who is also Jesus, who is also the Holy Spirit?)
There are no other gods (and Angels and saints, for some reason, aren't divine beings like demigods because this is DifferentTM;
But as I have said even they would admit to not being mainstream.
No, Christianity is faith in Jesus Christ. I'm not sure you can sum beliefs, it sounds like you are proposing an equation.
There is a bit more to it than just not feeling you have to keep quite about it.
Namely a superior attitude towards those who don't think they have to be loud n' proud of their atheism(See Dawkins, the God Delusion).
Turning ignorance of religion into a virtue therefore being in praise of intellectual sloppiness.
Being, as the atheist evolutionary biologist D O Wilson put it, a stealth religion.
New atheism certainly has it's apostles, The four horsemen.
It's saints, I believe there was a recent competition for new atheists to paint a Icon sorry portrait of a new atheist saint, Christopher Hitchens, the best icon to be judged namely St Stephen Fry.
We could also maybe talk about naked glorification of Horse Laugh arguments.
''Fundamental immorality''? what do you mean by that? How do you arrive at what is moral and what is immoral?
Are you familiar with Laurence Krauss on religion or the Richard Dawkins Documentary slyly entitled ''The root of all evil?''
So christian mysogeny bad, other mysogyny ok because it isn't Christian?
How would you lose institutional homophobia?
Christian nationalism? Not apparently a feature in african American churches.
White supremacy? Not found in the african american churches.
Mysogyny? Rife in the New atheist and scientific community.
I am not trying to make a Tu quoque argument here, just a counter to your implication that if Christianity was removed somebody who would have been, say, a paedophile priest would stop being a paedophile, a homophobe would not be homophobic or the mysogynist, well, you get the point.
If you are serious about finding out what the mainstream of Christianity prioritises You could start with the creeds.
Nope, he outlines his grounds in reply #4. They are based in methodological empiricism. Like any sane person, He has heard the reports, determined from them that they should yield empirical evidence, none of which has presently been found. He is an aleprechaunist.
You substitute a different approach on his behalf. Namely there is no logical argument for leprechauns as there is no logical argument for magic....and then the jump to God. It's not therefore the lack of an argument that the sensible are aleprechaunist, it is the lack of physical empirical evidence for Leprechauns.
Vlad,Has it occured to you that if one is wanting to use lab conditions, then it is empirical evidence that one is seeking?
Leaving aside for now that he also included “examples of wishes being granted under lab conditions”,
I also explained to you shortly afterwards that absence of evidence of the wee fellas when manifesting in physical form tells you nothing about their existence when in supernatural form.But it does yield humour and a little absurdity....We therefore have our material for someone to misuse via a horses laugh fallacy.
Jesus is both Human and divine if you could now explain how the divine yields empirical evidence this might help your case here.
I have heard the reports for “god” manifesting himself in the world too, determined from them that they should yield empirical evidence,
none of which has presently been found. I am an atheist. And ,obviously a philosophical empiricist See – it’s the same argument isn’t it.Obviously there is evidence for Jesus, recorded witnesses to the resurrection in the epistles based on two empirical statements. He was dead and subsequently he was alive.
Has it occured to you that if one is wanting to use lab conditions, then it is empirical evidence that one is seeking?
But it does yield humour and a little absurdity....We therefore have our material for someone to misuse via a horses laugh fallacy.
Jesus is both Human and divine…
…if you could now explain how the divine yields empirical evidence this might help your case here.
Obviously there is evidence for Jesus, recorded witnesses to the resurrection in the epistles based on two empirical statements. He was dead and subsequently he was alive.
Now, none of that was done in a lab, but if one accepts it one has evidence for Jesus and evidence for a highly improbable event/miracle/wish give which is lacking in the case of the Leprechaun.
Also…
God remains unfalsified because the divine is not subject to empirical analysis.
Where as the Leprechaun is and on the strength of absence of the expected empirical evidence I am an aleprechaunist and my grounds and reasons for being a theist are independent of my grounds and reasons for being a leprechaunist.
Have an utterly nice day.
Has it occured to you that if one is wanting to use lab conditions, then it is empirical evidence that one is seeking?
But it does yield humour and a little absurdity....We therefore have our material for someone to misuse via a horses laugh fallacy.
Jesus is both Human and divine if you could now explain how the divine yields empirical evidence this might help your case here.
Obviously there is evidence for Jesus, recorded witnesses to the resurrection in the epistles based on two empirical statements. He was dead and subsequently he was alive.
Now, none of that was done in a lab, but if one accepts it one has evidence for Jesus and evidence for a highly improbable event/miracle/wish give which is lacking in the case of the Leprechaun.
Also God remains unfalsified because the divine is not subject to empirical analysis. Where as the Leprechaun is and on the strength of absence of the expected empirical evidence I am an aleprechaunist and my grounds and reasons for being a theist are independent of my grounds and reasons for being a leprechaunist.
Have an utterly nice day.
Only if granted wishes could be verified under lab conditions. Otherwise they are supernatural and can neither be falsified nor confirmed unless you can produce a methodology to establish one or the other. Ditto with God.Doesn’t it go without saying you are looking for empirical evidence if you are using lab conditions. I wish I was happy forever might not be empirical but say Richard Dawkins asking for an immediate 50% increase in the size of his penis from 1 to 2 inches, is.
Leprechauns could well lead to humour and absurdity (ditto God), but not necessarily to the 'horse laugh fallacy'. That would depend on the attitude of the responder.I can see how the idea of tiny Irishmen at the end of rainbows who are never found there can be funny but in what way is God who apparently is simultaneously and for the same people, evil incarnate, funny?
That he is/was divine is simply an assertion with nothing more to recommend it than your belief unless you can offer something more convincing. That he was a human who actually existed can be examined by dint of evidence.There are the various arguments for God which end up with, Er, God. The arguments for cosmic Godlessness are at best....hazy and end up with Godknowswhat.
I agree, there is some evidence that Jesus actually existed, but the only evidence that he was resurrected is anecdotal, error strewn and comes from strongly biased sources. If one then takes into account the improbability of such an event happening, all you have is assertion.There is the whiff of the accusation of dishonesty here. That translates into a high probability of you committing the genetic fallacy.
The key word here is 'accepts'. and, for the basic reasons given above, I don't. Hence it seems to me to be very much equivalent to stories surrounding leprechauns.yes I can see cultural biases and a lack of intellectual investigative depth could lead to that, but that Still leaves an historical Jesus, A group of people who genuinely believed the account, epistolary evidence and God when Leprechauns have finally had it and we are laughing at them.....although from what you have said so far you’d laugh at anything. I see very little equivalence
The existence of any god cannot be falsified. Neither can it be confirmed. Ditto with leprechauns. I really would expect some empirical evidence of GodOn what warrant?
Leprechauns could well lead to humour and absurdity (ditto God), but not necessarily to the 'horse laugh fallacy'. That would depend on the attitude of the responder.
I can see how the idea of tiny Irishmen at the end of rainbows who are never found there can be funny but in what way is God who apparently is simultaneously and for the same people, evil incarnate, funny?
Hi enki,It’s the way you tell em Hillside and the way you tell em is indistinguishable from a horses laugh argument.
Just to note that it mostly depends on the way the argument is constructed. For a reductio ad absurdum to be valid it must show that an argument attempted to justify one fact claim (eg, “god”) works equally well for a different and plainly absurd fact claim of (eg, leprechauns). It’s been around since the Greeks, and this is the form I’ve always used when referencing leprechauns here.
By contrast the “horse laugh fallacy” (actually called the appeal to ridicule) is taking a ludicrous proposition and just claiming it to be equivalent to a serious one as an appeal to emotion. As an example:
Proposition: the law should require the wearing of seatbelts.
Appeal to ridicule: in that case you must think the law should require us to wear nappies and bibs too.
This is something I’ve never done.
What Vlad does it to pretend that the former is actually the latter, despite being corrected on it countless times. In part I think it’s because he sees the word “absurdum” and thinks that’s enough to get off the hook, and in part it’s because he’s too dishonest to address what these terms actually mean.
Vlad,I’m asking Enki why he finds God ridiculous and here you are giving us the old ‘ He’s not saying God is ridiculous he’s making a reduction absurdum’ What a complete non sequitur, red herring , deflection etc. Bzzzzzzzz Deviation.
FFS. Yet again: when the ARGUMENTS YOU ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM “God” work equally to justify the claim “leprechauns”, then they’re bad arguments.
The seriousness or frivolity you choose to attach to either outcome HAS ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL TO DO WITH THE FORCE OF THIS LOGIC.
Write it down 100 times until it sinks in. Or a 1,000. Or as many as it takes…
It’s the way you tell em Hillside and the way you tell em is indistinguishable from a horses laugh argument.
I’m asking Enki why he finds God ridiculous and here you are giving us the old ‘ He’s not saying God is ridiculous he’s making a reduction absurdum’ What a complete non sequitur, red herring , deflection etc. Bzzzzzzzz Deviation.
Which is not to say that their take is definitively wrong, nor does it speak to whether they have an orthodoxy of their own.I am not talking about wrongness I am talking about being mainstream.
If Christianity were just faith in Jesus then how come gay people get ostracised -Gay people get ostracised and worse by people who are not christian. I will admit that mention in scripture has undoubtably led to a position where homosexual acts are viewed as sinful but the church should recognise that it is a community of sinners and thus even if one believes it is a sin one shouldn't be a going about ostricising. There is as I understand an active Gay christian community. People for whom the christian issue and thegay issue is not a dealbreaker. Unfortunately because we are a much diminished forum, as far as I am aware we have no representatives of that church community. If you are alluding to the american church then i'm afraid the obvious aspect of that wing is about to come under it's own period of judgment for dabbling in politics.
the Christianity is not just faith, Christianity is the expression of that faith in innumerable ways, by all the variations of Christians.
No, more like when people suggest that when waxing about religion he should demonstrate the same intellectual rigour that he does with his science...
You mean that when people tell him to shut up he doesn't
People have called him 'shrill' and 'hateful' and 'superior' because he doesn't conform to their expectationAnd no doubt because he has come across like that and given the impression of revelling in it by his knowing winks to his gallery.;
it comes from the same place that sees a critique of religion as an unforgiveable attack on them.Unforgiveable no, there will be as much rejoicing over him as there would be over any one who repents.
He gets called 'militant' for having an opinion,He and his followers seem surprisingly mortified by that description. Can you say why? I recall it being used without comment to describe unions etc. Nobody ever thought even at the worst of times that Vic Feather former TUC boss at a time when unions could bring down UK governments, was going to come to a meeting of government tooled up wearing a beret and a cigar. Ditto Dawkins. Please get a perspective on this
whilst religious proponents need to be both brown and bearing arms to earn that - I'm not sure what Christian terrorists have to do to be called 'militant', it seems to slide off the teflon coating their prayers give them.Beg pardon.
Claiming that not falling for the myth that theology has something useful to contribute is not an ignorance of religion. He's well aware of religion, and makes his case for why it has no reliable foundation.Unfortunately he chose do do so in the form of a pop science book and in terms of religion finds himself well and truly in a fringe grouping, not only amongst the intelligencia but in atheism, whos star shone but very briefly for the decade following 9/11
Oh no, we have people who are famous, that definitely makes it a religion,Fame certainly can promote religious following but it isn't just that you have celebrities, it's that these celebrities are apostolic, they are messengers of a world transforming word, either a new word, a new way to live or a revival of a fundamental way of seeing things
why didn't you say so.... I now have to choose between the Church of Harris or the Church of Coronation Street. This sort of false equivalence only becomes laughableParticularly as you are the one making it.
Doesn’t it go without saying you are looking for empirical evidence if you are using lab conditions. I wish I was happy forever might not be empirical but say Richard Dawkins asking for an immediate 50% increase in the size of his penis from 1 to 2 inches, is.
I can see how the idea of tiny Irishmen at the end of rainbows who are never found there can be funny but in what way is God who apparently is simultaneously and for the same people, evil incarnate, funny?
There are the various arguments for God which end up with, Er, God. The arguments for cosmic Godlessness are at best....hazy and end up with Godknowswhat.
We need to remind ourselves that Leprechauns at this stage have had it, Jesus probably existed and The truth of God is at least a matter for philosophy and not empiricism.
There is the whiff of the accusation of dishonesty here. That translates into a high probability of you committing the genetic fallacy.
yes I can see cultural biases and a lack of intellectual investigative depth could lead to that, but that Still leaves an historical Jesus, A group of people who genuinely believed the account, epistolary evidence and God when Leprechauns have finally had it and we are laughing at them.....although from what you have said so far you’d laugh at anything. I see very little equivalence
On what warrant?
If you are unhappy with empirical evidence for establishing whether your God exists then why don't you suggest a different methodology?
So? Empirical evidence seems to be one very reasonable way of testing whether leprechauns exist. You asked me what type of evidence I would need and I gave you a variety which included testing granted wishes under lab conditions amongst others. Ditto your God.It is reasonable way of testing whether leprechauns exist because it is the empirical features of Leprechauns which define them which would form the evidence in question.
It is reasonable way of testing whether leprechauns exist because it is the empirical features of Leprechauns which define them which would form the evidence in question.
So? Empirical evidence seems to be one very reasonable way of testing whether leprechauns exist. You asked me what type of evidence I would need and I gave you a variety which included testing granted wishes under lab conditions amongst others. Ditto your God.OK but my first reactions are that these are pretty peripheral.
(http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17963.0).
If you are unhappy with empirical evidence for establishing whether your God exists then why don't you suggest a different methodology?
I actually said that 'Leprechauns could well lead to humour and absurdity (ditto God)'. Well, let's see shall we, by looking at your Holy Book which is permeated by ideas about God. Now I would like to say that I think the group of books called the Bible is an important work, it is imaginative, historical, mythological, poetic and capable of great wisdom. However, especially through modern eyes, it can also be rather whimsical, quaint and even silly and absurd.
I find the idea of spitting on people to heal them
or resurrecting a man who died after falling from a height after going to sleep listening to Paul
or being able to tread on serpents and scorpions safely
or curing illnesses by removing handkerchiefs and aprons
or cursing a fig tree simply because it hasn't any figs
to be downright silly.
I find the idea of
a god who finds it necessary to suggest that soldiers should not defecate in camp
a god who supports the wife of a man in a fight against another, but if she should grab the opponent's testicles then she should have her hand cut off
a god who wouldn't allow any man with crushed testicles or who had had their penis cut off to walk in the assembly of God
a god who encourages baking by using human shit although he relents when Ezekial turns his nose up at this, and allows cow dung instead
a god who suggests that when swearing to something, one must hold the other person's crotch whilst the vow is made
to be ludicrous
And I haven't even mentioned the Genesis story or Noah's Flood or the understandable but quaint attempts at science.As far as I know the Royal Institution wasn't a thing in the days when these were written so whether the term quaint attempts at science is valid and not just a dirty, stinking patronising attitude.....
You really want me to spell out why I would want some emprical evidence for God? There's plenty of it in the Bible, whether it be intervention in human affairs, resurrections after circa three days, virgin births, all sorts of miracles, the efficacy of prayer. So why shouldn't there be similar things today which can be investigated by applying scientific rigour and methods?But surely evidence of the intervention is evidence of an intervention rather than what intervenes isn't it. My approach is this. Given the issues around induction, what would an atheist make of a resurrection? Does he dismiss it straight off as a fault in his own faculties?, An offence against his philosophical scientism, naturalism, empiricism? If he does accept it has happened, what does he attribute it to? Aliens? Time travellers? Random event? You see even though he has evidence of the event or the phenomena, it doesn't falsify aliens, or randomness, or God.......so we are back to empirical means not being able to falsify God ....and your unreasonableness in expecting empirical evidence for God.
There is no verifiable evidence for philosophical empiricism, naturalism and physicalism.
Wriggling again Vlad?And so do you Ipso Ha Ha that was easy.
You believe without verifiable evidence
It is reasonable way of testing whether leprechauns exist because it is the empirical features of Leprechauns which define them which would form the evidence in question.
Secondly, ''Ditto your God'' was used by you to ditto absurdity and ridiculousness. If you are now saying Empirical characteristics define God I would have to disagree.
Therefore empirical investigation cannot falsify God. Let me repeat that, empirical investigation cannot falsify God.....and that is that
What methodology does verify or falsify is irrellevant to empirical investigation being able or unable to falsify God. So in that respect it matters not what the methodology is , or if I know it or if there even is one. It is all irellevant to the question of falsifiability of God by empirical means.
The existence of any god cannot be falsified. Neither can it be confirmed. Ditto with leprechauns. I really would expect some empirical evidence of God just as I would for leprechauns. If, as you suggest, this isn't possible, then, alternatively, give me reasons to accept your beliefs as true.
My approach is this. Given the issues around induction, what would an atheist make of a resurrection?
Does he dismiss it straight off as a fault in his own faculties?, An offence against his philosophical scientism, naturalism, empiricism? If he does accept it has happened, what does he attribute it to? Aliens? Time travellers? Random event?
You see even though he has evidence of the event or the phenomena, it doesn't falsify aliens, or randomness, or God.......so we are back to empirical means not being able to falsify God ....and your unreasonableness in expecting empirical evidence for God.
OK but my first reactions are that these are pretty peripheral.
As far as I know the Royal Institution wasn't a thing in the days when these were written so whether the term quaint attempts at science is valid and not just a dirty, stinking patronising attitude.....
But surely evidence of the intervention is evidence of an intervention rather than what intervenes isn't it. My approach is this. Given the issues around induction, what would an atheist make of a resurrection? Does he dismiss it straight off as a fault in his own faculties?, An offence against his philosophical scientism, naturalism, empiricism? If he does accept it has happened, what does he attribute it to? Aliens? Time travellers? Random event? You see even though he has evidence of the event or the phenomena, it doesn't falsify aliens, or randomness, or God.......so we are back to empirical means not being able to falsify God ....and your unreasonableness in expecting empirical evidence for God.
Wriggling again Vlad?
Sorry for not replying sooner I am not talking about wrongness I am talking about being mainstream.
Gay people get ostracised and worse by people who are not christian.
I will admit that mention in scripture has undoubtably led to a position where homosexual acts are viewed as sinful but the church should recognise that it is a community of sinners and thus even if one believes it is a sin one shouldn't be a going about ostricising.
There is as I understand an active Gay christian community.
People for whom the christian issue and thegay issue is not a dealbreaker.
If you are alluding to the american church then i'm afraid the obvious aspect of that wing is about to come under it's own period of judgment for dabbling in politics.
Of course everyone is entitled to ask what christianity is. What is less savoury is what I suspect you of, of treating the whole thing as a kind of mid 20th century social science which never actually consider the opinions of the subjects.
Given the issues around induction, what would an atheist make of a resurrection? Does he dismiss it straight off as a fault in his own faculties?
My first reaction would be, given the nature of the claimSorry My fault, the context is that the atheist is the witness, I'm afraid that makes this:
, to ask the claimant to demonstrate how they excluded the risks of bias, mistakes or lies in the anecdotal accounts of the claimed resurrection: if they can't satisfactorily do that then they would need to propose some method of investigation that is independent of the risks of human artifice - if they can't do either then it seems to me their claim just isn't a serious proposition as things stand and can indeed be dismissed.Redundant and irrelevant.....once again I can only offer my apologies and maybe advise you to read before you respond.
The burden of proof is on the claimant here (in this case of a resurrection), and if they can't satisfy reasonable demands to exclude known risks (bias, mistakes or lies) and/or propose a method that is suitable for checking out the details of the claim then it seems to me that their claim is, essentially, a worthless one no matter how much it appeals to them on a personal basis.
Redundant and irrelevant.....once again I can only offer my apologies and maybe advise you to read before you respond.
Sorry My fault, the context is that the atheist is the witness,
I'm afraid that makes this: Redundant and irrelevant.....once again I can only offer my apologies and maybe advise you to read before you respond.
Vlad,My point was even though you can witness a miracle there is only ever empirical evidence for that event not necessarily the explanation for it. That is it....Now if you or Gordon had read what I put maybe you wouldn't be introducing these deviations...But then again....as it's you....
Still plugging the same wrongness then eh? What someone witnesses and the explanation for it are different things. If I witness a comely young lady on a stage being sawn in two and then reconnected is that therefore what actually happened?
Oh, by the way…
IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?
My point was even though you can witness a miracle there is only ever empirical evidence for that event not necessarily the explanation for it.
I see: so your post is really no more than a straw man portrayal of how you think an atheist would react.I give a range of possible reactions.What do you think I missed out? Careful now you might have to Read what I put to answer it.
Perhaps you could clarify whether this atheist witness is active in current times or in antiquity in the Middle East at the time of the claimed resurrection, since clearly there would be differences both culturally and in terms of knowledge in general.Well let's say it's you Gordon. Now I know you are a big ''impossible'' merchant (Thus ignoring everything you've been told about the problems of induction.. But suppose you had seen somebody pronounced dead and had used your training and any specialised equipment to confirm it....and then later the victim was alive? What is your next move?[/quote] I thinking this attempt of yours at a thought experiment hasn't perhaps been thought through enough.
I tend to leave that sort of thing to you guys.
Well let's say it's you Gordon. Now I know you are a big ''impossible'' merchant (Thus ignoring everything you've been told about the problems of induction.. But suppose you had seen somebody pronounced dead and had used your training and any specialised equipment to confirm it....and then later the victim was alive? What is your next move?
So, and to avoid misunderstanding you, you are saying that if I were to think I had witnessed a miracle there would be empirical evidence that confirmed a miracle event occurred but that the explanation for it may be different from the empirical evidence?No what I am saying is if there is any empirical evidence of a miracle it would not necessarily constitute evidence for that miracle's explanation.
That does seem rather confused to me: perhaps you could explain what empirical evidence for the claimed miraculous resurrection of JesusI have noticed that some of my arguments do not conform to your experience or expectations and have always looked on that as your problem. However, to the business in hand. A post mortem report confirming the death, video evidence or their first century equivalents followed by evidence of a subsequent live appearance. My point though is that even were this available it would not constitute empirical evidence for God and that to expect such empirical evidence is therefore unreasonable.
I'd get someone qualified to check the equipment and then get other qualified opinions on my actions and conclusions: after all I could be simply wrong, or I could be attempting to mislead, or I could have been misled.Well thanks for warning us that you pose a danger of misleading us, however, I don't think you would. So, given that it isn't in you to mislead....what are you going to say?
My point was even though you can witness a miracle there is only ever empirical evidence for that event not necessarily the explanation for it. That is it....Now if you or Gordon had read what I put maybe you wouldn't be introducing these deviations...But then again....as it's you....
You are jumping the gun of presupposing the events are an illusion.
You remind me of someone trying to save his sand castles from the tide.
Vlad,I'm fondly remember the old AOL spirituality message board, there used to be a chap on that when he was serious would use a shade of brown. It became a bit of an in joke where getting serious was referred to as ''Using shit brown'' how we laughed...happy days...but now it has come to religionethics, sigh.
It's an entirely vapid point though because there’d be no way to know that you have experienced a miracle rather than something else. Even to be in that game you’d have to demonstrate first an entire ontology for a “supernatural” in which miracles could occur.
Ooh, a triple straw man in one sentence. Good effort.
1. I didn’t “presuppose” it all, I just said there’d be no way to exclude the possibility of a non-miraculous (though les thrilling) explanation.
2. Again, you confuse “the events” with possible explanation for them.
3. No-one said “illusion” – “mistaken attribution of casue” is fine. You know, like Thor would be for thunder.
Apart from that though..
Except the “tide” is your lies and dull misunderstandings, and the sand castles are actually nice hard pebbles, which is why you keep avoiding them.
Oh, and by the way…
IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?
I am of the opinion there is a natural explanation for so called 'miracles'.Really? I think that is calling for repeatability in something intrinsically unrepeated.
Well thanks for warning us that you pose a danger of misleading us, however, I don't think you would. So, given that it isn't in you to mislead....what are you going to say?
And if these other people verified it, what would happen then? ?
I'm fondly remember the old AOL spirituality message board, there used to be a chap on that when he was serious would use a shade of brown. It became a bit of an in joke where getting serious was referred to as ''Using shit brown'' how we laughed...happy days...but now it has come to religionethics, sigh.
How do you know it isn't in me to mislead?I admit I am less certain that you would not mislead others than you would mislead yourself so we are back to the scenario you having witnessed this and having the evidence
having witnessed this Are you saying that I would be incapable of telling lies if I thought it would advance a cause that was dear to me?This is the million dollar question isn't it. As a hard bitten non supernaturalist who is noted for introducing the concept of impossibility to resurrection what do you do now? Bury the evidence, retire, Bring your evidence to the world? Bring the evidence in front of yourself?, worry about what your friends on religionethics will say? Worry whether your family will disown you?
I think you would be foolish to simply believe me because you thought I was honest when what I was asking you to believe was so remarkable.Well such a turn around from a public and vocal atheist such as yourself WOULD BE REMARKABLE.
If I was claiming the miracle then the burden of proof would be mine, and those considering my claim would quite reasonably expect me to explain the justifications for my claim, such as a basis for verification that was independent of my, or others, subjective assurances that a miracle had happened.Nobody would expect otherwise, however I think you may be underestimating the ripple that someone like yourself changing position would constitute.
I'd say that resurrection of Jesus proponents have this burden, whether they like it or not, and if they can't exclude risks or explain a basis for verifying their claims - and especially if their claims descend into a fallacy-fest - then I'm quite entitled to dismiss their claim until such times as they can provide justification that stands scrutiny. Of course it is impossible for them to meet this challenge, which is why their belief in the resurrection of Jesus is a faith claim and not a factual one.Anybody who proposes a history has a duty IMV to evidence or give grounds to it.
Vlad,Given the number of times this has appeared....worse piece of attention seeking i've seen in a long time.
Your continued ducking and diving is noted. Other colours are available though, here for example:
IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?
Why not try at least to answer rather than keep running away? What's stopping you?
Given the number of times this has appeared....worse piece of attention seeking i've seen in a long time.
As a hard bitten non supernaturalist who is noted for introducing the concept of impossibility to resurrection what do you do now?
Vlad,Hillside. There are other posters I wish to discuss with, therefore it is extremely unreasonable for you to be howling baby like for me to 'burp' you.
Can you tell us where he said such a thing is "impossible", or is this yet another example of you lying about someone's actual position?
Hillside. There are other posters I wish to discuss with, therefore it is extremely unreasonable for you to be howling baby like for me to 'burp' you.
If you open a thread on this issue I will gladly discuss the matter there.
I admit I am less certain that you would not mislead others than you would mislead yourself so we are back to the scenario you having witnessed this and having the evidence
This is the million dollar question isn't it. As a hard bitten non supernaturalist who is noted for introducing the concept of impossibility to resurrection what do you do now? Bury the evidence, retire, Bring your evidence to the world? Bring the evidence in front of yourself?, worry about what your friends on religionethics will say? Worry whether your family will disown you?
Well such a turn around from a public and vocal atheist such as yourself WOULD BE REMARKABLE. Nobody would expect otherwise, however I think you may be underestimating the ripple that someone like yourself changing position would constitute.
However we have strayed from my point that even if you had empirical evidence of a resurrection it would merely be evidence of a resurrection and not of the cause.
Anybody who proposes a history has a duty IMV to evidence or give grounds to it.
And by introducing a history of dishonesty, mistake and misleading you need to show that it actually happened. The evidence is there that people witnessed this. For us to say they were wrong it is necessary to show where this happened. Belief in Christ tallies with what is a history but belief, as you have, in terms of the impossibility also denies it happened and in doing so creates another alternative historical account which needs demonstrating. To then offer anything less is lack of self respect.
So you recognise, whether it is deception by others or self-deception, that a witness could be misled without realising it?Yes, do you have any local evidence within living memory of the events for this?
I've never said that miracles are "impossible" but I've yet to see any basis to consider that anecdotal tales from antiquity, given the risks of human artifice, constitute sound evidence that miracles are possible.You and I know that we have discussed this before Gordon, whether it was before and after one of the forum's deep cleans we can find out but I distinctly recall you stating that dead people do not resurrect.
If I had empirical evidence of a resurrection that would have required a method whereby this evidence was described, collected and analysedI'm sure it would
leading to proposals regarding a possible cause. But since nobody has empirical evidence for the resurrection, Other than anecdotal accounts that come with risks, then your pointThere are reports within living memory of multiple witnesses experiencing sightings, touch and hearing of Jesus resurrected. Where are the reports within living memory of an alternative set of events happening?
is pointless anyway.
But I'm not proposing a history or accusing anyone of bias, making mistakes or telling liesBut in a sense Gordon that is exactly what you are doing.
since these are known risks when it comes to anecdotal witness accounts:These are known in some cases and absent in other cases Gordon. What we want is your evidence for it in this case, any documentation within living memory of the events will l do
I'm simply asking how those making the factual claim, as opposed to statement of personal faith, that Jesus was actually dead and was then resurrected to life have assessed these risks in relation to the anecdotal NT accounts. I have asked this often but to no avail''.Doubts about the veracity of the resurrection are documented in the epistles and you have been told this. The dialogue between certainty and doubt is recorded in the epistles and you have been told that too.
How are we - it is almost if theists who believe the claimed resurrection is a historical fact can't allow themselves to even consider that the NT might not be reliable and the burden of proof that it is reliable is theirs, and not mine.No. if you are suggesting an alternative history to that available then we are within our rights to ask you to provide similar counter evidence. If you are suggesting the NT is not reliable you need to show where and why it is unreliable
Yes, do you have any local evidence within living memory of the events for this? You and I know that we have discussed this before Gordon, whether it was before and after one of the forum's deep cleans we can find out but I distinctly recall you stating that dead people do not resurrect. I'm sure it would There are reports within living memory of multiple witnesses experiencing sightings, touch and hearing of Jesus resurrected. Where are the reports within living memory of an alternative set of events happening? But in a sense Gordon that is exactly what you are doing. These are known in some cases and absent in other cases Gordon. What we want is your evidence for it in this case, any documentation within living memory of the events will l do Doubts about the veracity of the resurrection are documented in the epistles and you have been told this. The dialogue between certainty and doubt is recorded in the epistles and you have been told that too. No. if you are suggesting an alternative history to that available then we are within our rights to ask you to provide similar counter evidence. If you are suggesting the NT is not reliable you need to show where and why it is unreliable
Don't be silly: there are numerous examples of the risks of anecdotal evidence, such as the police evidence given to the Hillsborough enquiry. So when you say "There are reports within living memory of multiple witnesses experiencing sightings, touch and hearing of Jesus resurrected. " I'd simply ask on what basis you could exclude the risks I've mentioned in relation to these specifics. The claim and associated burden of proof isn't mine since I'm not making any claim: I'm simply asking those who accept the anecdotal claims are accurate how they assessed risks, and that doesn't require me to create an alternative narrative.So absolutely nothing written within living memory of the events to support your suggestion that doubts were not recorded and verification was not suggested in the epistles, the letters or memos of the church(........they are).
That people who have been clinically dead for three days do stay dead is a fact: ask your local undertaker to confirm this, and we would only revise that if reliable evidence to the contrary emerged. However, the claim of Christians here involves anecdotes of a miracle occurring in a special case, so they've moved beyond naturalism here but the burden of proof is still theirs, and if they even can't get past checking for bias, mistakes and lies then it does looks bleak in terms of them demonstrating that this miracle really did happen.
We can reliably conclude then that people who have been dead for three days do stay dead and that resurrection wouldn't be possible in normal circumstances - but the Christian claim here is that it did once happen in the case of Jesus due to a miracle, implying that in normal circumstances resurrection is impossible and only becomes possible if something miraculous happens: so, all that is needed now is for you to play your black swan in the shape of providing evidence for this claimed miracle with details of the method(s) used, so as to allow verification, along with confirmation of how the various risks I've mentioned can be excluded else the claim of Jesus being resurrected is indistinguishable from fiction.
So absolutely nothing written within living memory of the events to support your suggestion that doubts were not recorded and verification was not suggested in the epistles, the letters or memos of the church(........they are).
To record and acknowledge doubts and to offer suggestions for validation is the most you could do I would have thought.
In the absence of anything from your side Gordon, I see no reason to discard the epistiolary statements that these were miraculous events, that people genuinely believed they did witness the death, the death was confirmed that they genuinely believed had met, seen, heard a resurrected person. That there was doubt in some quarters and that 500 witnesses were recommended as sources of verification in order to dispel these doubts.
I see no reason or evidence to view these 500 as co conspirators or indeed to be conjured out of thin air since to make them up would have courted humiliation on discovery of the fraud. I see no reason that these epistles were written for anybody other than the target audience. That there was a target audience and that that target audience weren't capable of questioning there own faith.
Your argument from incredulity is in contrast not so impressive. Neither is this ''yeah well at Hillsborough etc etc'' schtick.
To paraphrase the great philosopher Shania Twain ''So, you're a big wheel atheist.......that don't impress me much''
And quoting that philosopher in the case of Bluehillside ''So, you're Brad Pitt.....that don't impress me much either''.
Not my problem, Vlad: not my claim.I don't think anyone involved has avoided considering the possibility of risks, mistakes or lies. Going back to the first christians. That is another facile and intellectually slovenly caricature. If you think there were, let's have the evidence.
The weaknesses and lack of provenance of these ancient anecdotal accounts of miracles are for you guys to wrestle with, and if you're happy to avoid considering the risks of bias, mistakes or lies in an effort to maintain that your faith beliefs equate to historic facts, then all I can do is wonder at your naivety.
I don't think anyone involved has avoided considering the possibility of risks, mistakes or lies. Going back to the first christians. That is another facile and intellectually slovenly caricature. If you think there were, let's have the evidence.But let's also look at what you are implying here. No one has considered risks, bias, here according to you. Why have you come to that conclusion in the absence of evidence? Because if you had you would think the same way I do.
Not my problem, Vlad: not my claim.And the positive assertion of weakness and lack of provenance is for you to demonstrate.
The weaknesses and lack of provenance of these ancient anecdotal accounts of miracles are for you guys to wrestle with,
I don't think anyone involved has avoided considering the possibility of risks, mistakes or lies. Going back to the first christians. That is another facile and intellectually slovenly caricature. If you think there were, let's have the evidence.
So absolutely nothing written within living memory of the events to support your suggestion that doubts were not recorded and verification was not suggested in the epistles, the letters or memos of the church(........they are).I presume then that you believe that the Miracle of the Sun actually occurred as described by the 30 plus thousand witnesses?
To record and acknowledge doubts and to offer suggestions for validation is the most you could do I would have thought.
In the absence of anything from your side Gordon, I see no reason to discard the epistiolary statements that these were miraculous events, that people genuinely believed they did witness the death, the death was confirmed that they genuinely believed had met, seen, heard a resurrected person. That there was doubt in some quarters and that 500 witnesses were recommended as sources of verification in order to dispel these doubts.
I see no reason or evidence to view these 500 as co conspirators or indeed to be conjured out of thin air since to make them up would have courted humiliation on discovery of the fraud. I see no reason that these epistles were written for anybody other than the target audience. That there was a target audience and that that target audience weren't capable of questioning there own faith.
And the positive assertion of weakness and lack of provenance is for you to demonstrate.
I presume then that you believe that the Miracle of the Sun actually occurred as described by the 30 plus thousand witnesses?I believe there was an event of some sort yes. Whether the sun actually moved no I don't think it did, Whether shit like mass hallucination or mass hysteria is adequate to cover what happened, no, I suspect that to be mealy mouth longshot protecting philosophical empiricism.
And verified later by a Pope, no less!
If not, why not?
But let's also look at what you are implying here. No one has considered risks, bias, here according to you. Why have you come to that conclusion in the absence of evidence? Because if you had you would think the same way I do.
And why do you think the way you do? Can you demonstrate how you considered the risks, the biases etc. To come up with your conclusions? Let's see it
I believe there was an event of some sort yes. Whether the sun actually moved no I don't think it did, Whether shit like mass hallucination or mass hysteria is adequate to cover what happened, no, I suspect that to be mealy mouth longshot protecting philosophical empiricism.
Even sillier: it is the absence of any systematic assessment of bias, mistakes or lies in the NT that I'm aware of - and heaven knows I've asked this of you guys here often enough - is an observation. However, if you have assessed these risks then perhaps you could explain how you did this: after all, the burden of proof regarding NT claims is yours and not mine.Nope evidence and demonstration. There is recorded dated and researched evidence of doubt and assisted investigation of witness in the epistles. What more could be done than that?
So you think it is possible that some of the faithful, for whatever reason, made a genuine mistake and that their accounts of the Sun 'dancing' weren't literally true?I think that rather just for viewers in Scotland, this was just for viewers in Fatima.
For crying out loud: the claim is yours, as is the burden of proof, so my asking in effect "have you checked the details are correct, and how did you check" is a fairly reasonable question.I have given evidence whether you believe that evidence is up to you.
I have given evidence whether you believe that evidence is up to you.
If I have a burden of proof that this is the way history is then the status quo is that something else happened in place of these events. This is not a neutral it is not a case of this history or no history. No history is not an option however hard you wish it Gordon. So, where is your evidence for this other history that you are proposing by default, where are your checks on that history? Where is your elimination of bias?
The details are from the epistles and I have outlined them to you several times and why I go with them rather against them(e.g. They are effectively memos, entries historical snapshots of a set of communities, what was being believed, what was being doubted rather than a rounded polished Gospel).The question is what have you got? Not much at all as far as I can see.
You can try to run away from the burden of proof responsibility, Vlad, but it remains your responsibility the miracle claim is yours, and your claim is dependent on the content of the NT and, therefore, it is your responsibility to confirm that this content is free from the risks of bias, mistakes or lies in order for it to be considered a reliable source of historical facts (which in this case includes claims of miracles).And again I ask you what bias? What mistake and what lies?. I have already told you that in my view the NT text demonstrates there were doubts about the resurrection and that these were addressed at the time by offering up 500 sources of witness. Since these accounts are in letters that were written in full ignorance of any future preservation My judgment is that we can take these as snapshots of what was believed, what was doubted and what was the response to these doubts. There is nothing here to tell me that ,given the scale and spread of these communities that due diligence was absent entirely or that the leaders did not open themselves up to full scrutiny. In terms of bias. Bias in this case it seems to me would mean that Christianity was made up by a bunch of Christians. I judge that to be an unlikely scenario. Also it is unlikely that people affected by Jesus for the first time only comprised of those previously affected by Christ
Your request for me to produce an alternative history is plain silly: on what basis could even I do that if the primary source, the NT, may contain bias, mistakes or lies to the extent that what it contains may not be reliable to start with?So let me get this straight, the New testament is unreliable until I prove it reliable? Again, I ask you, where is the unreliability?
Your request for me to produce an alternative history is plain silly: on what basis could even I do that if the primary source, the NT, may contain bias, mistakes or lies to the extent that what it contains may not be reliable to start with? You are, by avoiding acknowledging these risks
I have already told you that in my view the NT text demonstrates there were doubts about the resurrection and that these were addressed at the time by offering up 500 sources of witness.
In fact the only way you can start the investigation you are requesting by finding out is what it saying.
And again I ask you what bias? What mistake and what lies?.
I have already told you that in my view the NT text demonstrates there were doubts about the resurrection and that these were addressed at the time by offering up 500 sources of witness.
Since these accounts are in letters that were written in full ignorance of any future preservation My judgment is that we can take these as snapshots of what was believed, what was doubted and what was the response to these doubts.
There is nothing here to tell me that ,given the scale and spread of these communities that due diligence was absent entirely or that the leaders did not open themselves up to full scrutiny.
In terms of bias. Bias in this case it seems to me would mean that Christianity was made up by a bunch of Christians. I judge that to be an unlikely scenario. Also it is unlikely that people affected by Jesus for the first time only comprised of those previously affected by Christ
So let me get this straight, the New testament is unreliable until I prove it reliable? Again, I ask you, where is the unreliability?
I am acknowledging them and so do the epistles. Unlike your good self I don't start with not investigating the NT because of the risk. In fact the only way you can start the investigation you are requesting by finding out is what it saying.
What do you think the default is here?
And so do you Ipso Ha Ha that was easy.
I'd say one default is, to borrow from Carl Sagan, that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - and that anecdotal accounts in the NT that date from antiquity for which the risks of bias, mistakes and lies can't seemingly be excluded are insufficient to justify the miracles claims made in the NT.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What type of extraordinary evidence? What are we looking at or for here?
No idea: but these are known risks when it comes to anecdotal accounts, and I'd have thought an essential step for you guys to take would be to exclude these risks in the source used for your claim.''Until you look at the New testament for fear that it may contain Bias, Lies and Mistakes you are going to make your judgments out of what you believe rather than the evidence before you. If you have read the evidence then your statement that you have no idea where Mistakes, lies and bias creep in is not credible, oh you have.
If you aren't prepared to check this out then you can't be surprised if others, like me, have doubts about the veracity of the source you are dependent on.
So the story goes, but there is a difference between someone claiming there were 500 witnesses and that there were actually 500 witnesses - is it possible they were exaggerating or lying? Have you checked? Have you got the CCTV so we can count the numbers (and also check that the CCTV output hasn't been altered), have you got signed testimony from each?
What they believed, however sincerely, is not and indicator that these beliefs are correct: this is a critical difference, unless you're inclined to believe them as a matter of personal faith.
How do you know this, since to be confident in their conclusions you'd have to know that they saw the need for due diligence, especially given the nature of the miracle claim, and then establish how they did their due diligence - have you checked?
Underlying all of this is special pleading: that early Christians, church fathers, disciples (or whatever other labels apply) were somehow immune from the risks of bias, making mistakes or telling lies - if so, how would you justify this without using fallacious arguments from authority/tradition, and if you accept that they were as fallible as the rest of us then you'd, presumably, be prepared to concede that some content in the NT might not be historical fact.
Yep - it is for you to show it to be reliable and, in doing so, explain how you've concluded that the risks of bias, mistake or lies are negligible and also explain why the NT stories are sufficient to conclude that miracles did indeed happen. Unless you can do that I am quite entitled to simply note that those using the NT to support miracle claims seem not to have taken account of the risks associated with accounts attributed to people, and come to the view that since it is indistinguishable from fiction I have no need to take it seriously.
Or you could just say 'it is a matter of personal faith and not historical fact', and stop painting yourself into every available corner.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What type of extraordinary evidence? What are we looking at or for here?
Bias can't be excluded? what bias are we talking about? Mistakes? What mistakes are we talking about? Where might the lies come in?
Have you actually looked at the epistles? or the New testament? If you have then surely you can answer my questions.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What type of extraordinary evidence? What are we looking at or for here?
Bias can't be excluded? what bias are we talking about? Mistakes? What mistakes are we talking about? Where might the lies come in?
Have you actually looked at the epistles? or the New testament? If you have then surely you can answer my questions.
No ideaIf you are claiming cluelessness on your part I won't disagree.
Until you look at the New testament for fear that it may contain Bias, Lies and Mistakes you are going to make your judgments out of what you believe rather than the evidence before you. If you have read the evidence then your statement that you have no idea where Mistakes, lies and bias creep in is not credible, oh you have.
Now if you are saying that all ancient texts are not credible or reliable ditto maybe not credible or reliable it is encumbent on you to say why. That is the price of making a positive assertion.
Now let me go through this again.
Bias. Where is the bias in a christian who has doubts about the resurrection?
Where is the bias in somebody who suggests where such a person can investigate that which he doubts.
Which one is the liar in these two.
Somebody was lying about the death and resurrection. Well there is no reason why somebody in living memory would lie that there were 500 witnesses and hope toget away with it.
So you see Gordon I've covered the issues of Bias, Lying and Mistake.
If you reject the epistles then you are proposing that something else happened and your denial of doing so is not credible. If you insist you are not making a historical statement then you are basing your judgment on your personal beliefs.
If you are claiming cluelessness on your part I won't disagree.
Vlad,Evidence?
So just to be clear, you’re asking how ancient texts about a supposed event that no-one though important enough to write down at the time,
that happened when countless other miracle stories were thought credible,Gordon and I discussed the question on whether that particular time was any more ultragullible than other to times. The epistles show an understanding that the events in Jesus ministry would be mainly regarded with incredulity. Gordon hasn't as far as I am aware played the first century gullibility card.
that have been multiply translated since thenLists of bible translations and the conditions of their translation are available on Wikipedia
(generally by people with agendas to pursue)That describes almost everyone on earth,
that rely on eye witness accounts (one of the most unreliable forms of evidence)What are we talking about in this case?,
that also reach for an explanatory narrative outwith all known observable phenomena,Philosophical empiricism?
Not my problem, Vlad: remember the burden of proof is yours, and it seems you can't deliver.The evidence has been put before you. If you make judgment without inspection there isn't a lot that can be done.
The evidence has been put before you. If you make judgment without inspection there isn't a lot that can be done.
Nope: ancient anecdotal tales, many with uncertain provenance, have been put before meAnd did you read them?
And did you read them?
Once upon a time.So It's reasonable to expect you to have come to a judgment of what you read and unreasonable of you to say you haven't even though you read them.
So It's reasonable to expect you to have come to a judgment of what you read and unreasonable of you to say you haven't even though you read them.
If you read them then where are the lies, the bias and the mistakes?
Nope: my judgement is that they are simply unbelievable as they stand because; a) they are ancient anecdotes of uncertain provenance,On what grounds do you make the judgment that their provenance is uncertain?
b) they contain fantastical claimsargument from incredulity?
On what grounds do you make the judgment that their provenance is uncertain? b) they contain fantastical claimsargument from incredulity?
So, for the reasons noted above, I can just dismiss these tales meantime as being ancient religious superstitions and not serious history
On what grounds do you make your assertion that these are total fictions and not serious history. Which components did not exist Jesus, Crucifixion, the Christian communities?
The epistles not being serious history is not a generally accepted view amongst academics. So we can probably dismiss your views on that.
Vlad,Did you take any pictures of it?
I saw a unicorn this morning. Do you doubt that?
OK, then I’m offering up the extra claim that that 500 other people saw it too.Did any of these 500 take any pictures of it?
Good heavens, you do struggle: aside from a few Pauline letters the provenance of the NT is largely unknown, and that they contain fantastical claims, such as dead people not staying dead, people walking on water or thousands being fed from the equivalent of a loaf and a large packet of fish fingers, then I'd say you'd need a bit more than a few ancient anecdotes (that come with risks attached) before you could take such claims seriously.So why did you use the word 'Tales' then if you aren't dismissing the stories as myth?
I'm not saying they are "total fictions": I'm saying that until such times as the risks of bias, mistakes or lies are addressed, and miracle claims verified, and I doubt they can be, then the only reasonable position is to treat them as being indistinguishable from fiction until such times as there are grounds to treat them as being historical facts - and that is a problem for those who take the NT seriously, and not me.
So why did you use the word 'Tales' then if you aren't dismissing the stories as myth?
If it isn't a total myth and given that most of ancient history outside archeology is derived from anecdotal epistiolary material, what elements revealed in the epistles are you accepting as possible credible history?
Evidence?
Gordon and I discussed the question on whether that particular time was any more ultragullible than other to times. The epistles show an understanding that the events in Jesus ministry would be mainly regarded with incredulity. Gordon hasn't as far as I am aware played the first century gullibility card.
Lists of bible translations and the conditions of their translation are available on Wikipedia
That describes almost everyone on earth,
What are we talking about in this case?
Philosophical empiricism?
Did you take any pictures of it?
Did any of these 500 take any pictures of it?
Vlad,Yes these documents were written within living memory and are about a past event. Their target audience are established communities which had grown up over time and distributed at multiple sites in Pax Romana. These communities develop from groups adherent to the events in question.
That the first written account of supposes resurrection didn’t happen until decades after the event?
“The earliest mention of the resurrection is in the Pauline epistles, which tradition dates from between 50 and 58 AD.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_and_origin_of_the_resurrection_of_Jesus#:~:text=The%20earliest%20mention%20of%20the,between%2050%20and%2058%20AD.
Vlad,Ah yes, I thought this was where your error lay. The report is an epistle by someone who claimed to have met the apostles who were still around incidentally to long established communities which are distributed. Therefore the witnesses are still around and the reports are not long post date as there are established communities based on those reports. Think of this as people in 2020 discussing a movement set in motion in 2000.
Hearsay reports that long post-date supposed eye witness accounts. That’s a triple whammy of unreliability even before we get to the a priori problem of supernaturalism.
Vlad,That's too bad. Regarding taking your word for it that is rendered very difficult on account of you having an Essex post code.
Nope, it became non-material just as I was about to take one. You just have to take my word for it therefore
Whoosh! The point is that, if you have one account of an event and that same account includes the claim that 500 other people saw it too you still have only one account – not 500.Face palm. That's why I asked whether they had taken any photos.
Ah yes, I thought this was where your error lay. The report is an epistle by someone who claimed to have met the apostles who were still around incidentally to long established communities which are distributed. Therefore the witnesses are still around and the reports are not long post date as there are established communities based on those reports. Think of this as people in 2020 discussing a movement set in motion in 2000.
I'd be glad to discuss the supernatural elements of this but so far we are dealing with already established communities of believers in an event/s 20 years previous and that is true regardless of whether we believe in the supernatural elements.
You seem to be thinking that the Christianity of diverse and distributed groups two decades after the events is based on just one or two witnesses with a twenty year old story. When there were far more and the witnesses were still alive.
How do you know this to be the case with reasonably certainty?I would investigate further of course.
If I told you that fifteen people saw me put diesel in the car this morning you don't have 16 reports confirming my claim: you only have one report, and even though putting diesel in a car is a relatively trivial event I could still be lying even though I said 15 other people saw me.
Yes you could be lying that's why I would want to quiz these other 15 people. Names and addresses please.
If I told you that fifteen people saw me put diesel in the car this morning you don't have 16 reports confirming my claim: you only have one report, and even though putting diesel in a car is a relatively trivial event I could still be lying even though I said 15 other people saw me.
Has the penny dropped for you yet?
Yes you could be lying that's why I would want to quiz these other 15 people. Names and addresses please.
I was lying, VladI suspected as much
can you see the problem yet?Yes, Shit analogy on your part.
Yes, Shit analogy on your part.
Yes these documents were written within living memory and are about a past event. Their target audience are established communities which had grown up over time and distributed at multiple sites in Pax Romana. These communities develop from groups adherent to the events in question.
As with a lot of epistiolory, Christian and non Christian, we are only of course seeing what is extant. But that is a subsidiary point as to why something written at a later date can tell us about the past development of it’s context.
Ah yes, I thought this was where your error lay. The report is an epistle by someone who claimed to have met the apostles who were still around incidentally to long established communities which are distributed. Therefore the witnesses are still around and the reports are not long post date as there are established communities based on those reports. Think of this as people in 2020 discussing a movement set in motion in 2000.
I'd be glad to discuss the supernatural elements of this but so far we are dealing with already established communities of believers in an event/s 20 years previous and that is true regardless of whether we believe in the supernatural elements.
That's too bad. Regarding taking your word for it that is rendered very difficult on account of you having an Essex post code.
Face palm. That's why I asked whether they had taken any photos.
You seem to be thinking that the Christianity of diverse and distributed groups two decades after the events is based on just one or two witnesses with a twenty year old story. When there were far more and the witnesses were still alive.
It's not even an analogy, it's another example of exactly the same thing.Not really, the argument assumes zero recourse to eyewitness at this time.
Not really, the argument assumes zero recourse to eyewitness at this time.
However, This isn't just a case about a resurrection no matter how unusual that event is, this is about the life and death and the incarnation and the present eternal existence of Christ and the implications of these for mankind and the individuals concerned, conviction of one's alienation against God, ourselves and our fellow human beings etc.
Vlad,Hillside, You seem to be arguing from two angles here. An alternative history whereby The resurrection story is conjured by a small group of individuals in AD50-58 and argument from incredulity. The author is Paul. At the time of writing he had known multiple eyewitnesses for 20 or more years most of these were still alive. Now Paul is a clever man with an agenda of a holy God of truth and good. Imagine what a prize plonker he would look if the multitude of associates had blown the gaff and said Paul? That fucking lying nutter?
You asked for evidence that the written record wasn’t contemporaneous, and I gave it to you. Your difficulty here is that not only do you have the inherent problem of the unreliability of eye witness accounts in general, nor only that the considerable passage of time allows for more errors to enter as stories are told and re-told, but also that the authors weren’t even the eye witnesses either. That’s your triple whammy of problems. And that’s before you even get to the problem of demonstrating a priori a “supernatural” in which supposed miracles could occur.
You’d have been better advised just to have said “thank you” and moved on.
See above.
Wrong again. If you think the author(s) took in-person statements from the witnesses rather than just wrote down the story they'd heard, then explain why – and then perhaps have a go at explaining why even if that was the case it would fix the various reliability problems you’d still have.
So now you’re shifting ground from “there were 500 witnesses” (presumably to avoid the problem that that does not mean there are 500 records – only one would b necessary that said “there were 500 witnesses) to “communities of believers”. Well yes, presumably there were communities of believers in all sorts of claims based on hearsay, credulity, a Zeitgeist in which miracle stories were commonly accepted in the absence of any other explanations etc. That doesn’t help you though, and the problem of establishing a “supernatural” is still an a priori one – not something you can just tack on at the end to make the story at least possibly true.
Grow up.
Even bigger face palm – the point you’ve just missed or dodged is that claiming 500 witnesses doesn’t thereby add credibility to the story because still you’d have only one account that said that. This isn’t difficult to understand – even for you.
True or not, we still have just the one account though. Are you now claiming that the author interviewed all the witnesses, then wrote down faithfully what they said? How would you know that?
Are you feeling some kind of pressure to convert?
Thank you for the wee outburst of proselytising.
Hillside, You seem to be arguing from two angles here. An alternative history whereby The resurrection story is conjured by a small group of individuals in AD50-58…
Nope. No-one has said that, when the story was finally written down, it was just conjured from thin air. Paul may well have been a proto folklorist recording faithfully the myths and stories of the communities he knew about. No-one has said either by the way that those communities didn’t genuinely belief these stories to be true, any more than the communities with the various resurrection stories that preceded it didn’t think their versions to be true too.Quote…and argument from incredulity.
Yet another of your misunderstandings. The argument from incredulity is: “I cannot imagine how X could be true; therefore X must be false”. No-one is saying that the resurrection story must be false though. What’s actually said is that there are many possible, real world explanations for it that you have no means of eliminating.
Is your non-belief in my stories about the doings of leprechauns an argument from incredulity too? Why not?
[quote[The author is Paul. At the time of writing he had known multiple eyewitnesses for 20 or more years most of these were still alive. Now Paul is a clever man with an agenda of a holy God of truth and good. Imagine what a prize plonker he would look if the multitude of associates had blown the gaff and said Paul? That fucking lying nutter?
We know as a byproduct of the documents that there is a believing community which is established, widespread, discusses and debates that belief, is dynamic etc and it contains eyewitnesses. That doesn't have to be written down we can tell from the document.
What exactly is the problem in accepting a possible purpose to life and the existence of an after-life?
There is significant anecdotal evidence for the after-life...which itself probably indicates a purpose too.
I understand that you people are disillusioned with religions, their mythology and many of their negative effects on society. No problem about that. But that should not become a mental block that prevents any kind of intelligent philosophical speculation.
Scientism should not be the only system to understand the world and our lives.
Merely saying that....'I don't see it' or 'Show it to me through any measurable means or an instrument'....are childish and unreasonable arguments.